Supreme Court Protects Teachers Unlawfully Denied Salary Due to School’s Manipulation: Radhey Shyam Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 3 January 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 7

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can teachers be denied their salaries and deemed out of service due to a manipulation of sanctioned posts by the school management, when they had no involvement in the fraudulent activity? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in a recent service law case. The Court examined the matter of three teachers who were appointed in 1999, had their salaries stopped in 2005, and were effectively terminated due to the school’s manipulation of sanctioned posts. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

Radhey Shyam Yadav, Lal Chandra Kharwar, and Ravindra Nath Yadav were appointed as Assistant Teachers at Junior High School, Bahorikpur, Maharajganj, District Jaunpur, U.P. on June 25, 1999. The school was initially a recognized unaided school in 1983-1984 with a sanctioned strength of one Head Master, four Assistant Teachers, three Peons, and one Clerk. On October 7, 1996, two additional posts for Assistant Teachers were sanctioned, bringing the total to six.

On December 26, 1997, the Director of Education (Basic) sanctioned additional posts of Assistant Teachers. While the department claimed only two posts were sanctioned, the school management asserted three posts were sanctioned. The school then sought permission from the District Basic Education Officer to advertise the posts on January 28, 1998. The school became an aided school in 1998. The District Basic Education Officer, on November 20, 1998, permitted the advertisement for three posts of Assistant Teachers. An advertisement was then issued on November 25, 1998. The School requested a nominee for the selection committee from the District Basic Education Officer on December 8, 1998. The Assistant District Basic Education Officer, Bahorikpur was nominated as a member. The selection committee interviewed seven candidates out of twelve applicants, and on December 27, 1998, recommended the three appellants for appointment. The District Basic Education Officer approved their appointments on June 9, 1999, and they were appointed on June 25, 1999.

The teachers’ salaries were abruptly stopped in October 2005. The teachers filed writ petitions in the High Court seeking payment of arrears from July 1999 to January 2002 and the continuation of their salaries from October 2005. The District Basic Education Officer, in his counter-affidavit, alleged that only two additional posts were created and that the school management manipulated the order to show three posts. However, no evidence was provided to show the teachers were involved in any manipulation. An inquiry was conducted, which found that the school management had overwritten the sanctioned posts from “two” to “three”.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the selection process was based on a forged letter and that the selected candidates were not entitled to be appointed or retained. The High Court also held that since forgery was committed by the persons involved in the selection, the entire selection needs to be cancelled. The appellants then filed writ appeals, which were also dismissed by the Division Bench, reiterating the findings of the Single Judge.

Legal Framework

The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific sections of statutes or constitutional articles. However, the case revolves around principles of service law and the concept of natural justice, which are implicitly rooted in the Constitution of India. The court’s analysis focuses on the fairness of the selection process and the rights of the teachers who were not at fault.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that they were not at fault for any wrong computation of vacancies and should not be prejudiced for any manipulation at the school level.
• They contended that the State admitted that two vacancies were created, and if there was any manipulation, it was by the school.
• The appellants emphasized that they had been continuously teaching and that they had no blameworthy conduct.
• They relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 494 and Vivek Kaisth and Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 2023:INSC:1007 = 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1485 to support their claim that they should not be penalized for the errors of the employer.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State argued that the entire selection process was vitiated due to fraud.
• They relied on Sachin Kumar and Ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Ors. 2021:INSC:147 = 2021 (4) SCC 631 to argue that where there is fraud, the whole selection process should be cancelled.
• The State contended that there was no case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the State was justified in stopping the salaries of the appellants, given that they were not involved in the manipulation of the sanctioned posts by the school management.
2. Whether the appellants should be penalized for the manipulation by the school, when they were not at fault.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases:

• Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and Another vs. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare, (2005) 10 SCC 465 – Supreme Court of India: This case involved a similar situation where an employee was dismissed due to alleged fraudulent recommendation, but the court held that without any overt act by the employee, they cannot be held responsible.
• Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 494 – Supreme Court of India: This case protected the selection of appellants where the error was committed by the respondent board and not by the appellants.
• Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2021:INSC:101 = (2021) 5 SCC 424 – Supreme Court of India: This case followed the ratio of Vikas Pratap Singh and held that the appellants were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities.
• Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Another vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others, (1993) 3 SCC 591 – Supreme Court of India: This case held that an employee should not be disturbed from his post when the illegality was committed by the selection committee and not by the employee.
• Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 690 – Supreme Court of India: This case protected the appointments of innocent parties even if they did not make the grade in a re-evaluation.
• K. Ameer Khan and Anr. Vs. A. Gangadharan and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 84 – Supreme Court of India: This case protected the promotion of appellants where the wrong computation of vacancies was done by the respondent.
• Vivek Kaisth and Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 2023:INSC:1007 = 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1485 – Supreme Court of India: This case protected the appointments of appellants even when the appointments were in excess of the advertised vacancies.
• Sivanandan C.T. and Others vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 994 – Supreme Court of India: This case protected the appointments of persons who had secured appointments even though the rules of the game were changed by the High Court.
• Sachin Kumar and Ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Ors. 2021:INSC:147 = 2021 (4) SCC 631 – Supreme Court of India: This case was distinguished by the court as it involved the cancellation of the selection process before any appointments were made.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the ratio in Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and Another vs. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare, (2005) 10 SCC 465, stating that without any overt act by the employee, they cannot be held responsible for the fraud.
• The Court relied on Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 494, stating that the appellants should not be penalized for the errors of the employer.
• The Court followed Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2021:INSC:101 = (2021) 5 SCC 424, reiterating that the appellants were not responsible for the irregularities.
• The Court cited Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Another vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others, (1993) 3 SCC 591, stating that the employee should not be disturbed from his post when the illegality was committed by the selection committee and not the employee.
• The Court also relied on Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 690, stating that the appointments of innocent parties should be protected.
• The Court followed K. Ameer Khan and Anr. Vs. A. Gangadharan and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 84, protecting the promotion of appellants where the wrong computation of vacancies was done by the respondent.
• The Court followed Vivek Kaisth and Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 2023:INSC:1007 = 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1485, protecting the appointments of appellants even when the appointments were in excess of the advertised vacancies.
• The Court relied on Sivanandan C.T. and Others vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 994, protecting the appointments of persons who had secured appointments even though the rules of the game were changed by the High Court.
• The Court distinguished Sachin Kumar and Ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Ors. 2021:INSC:147 = 2021 (4) SCC 631, stating that it involved the cancellation of the selection process before any appointments were made and was therefore not applicable to the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellants were innocent parties who had no involvement in the manipulation of the sanctioned posts. The Court emphasized that the appellants were bona fide applicants from the open market and that the alleged mischief was at the end of the school and its management. The Court also considered that the appellants had been working for a considerable period and that stopping their salaries and deeming them out of service would cause them enormous prejudice. The court also considered the fact that the appointment order and the approval order were still in force.

The Court also highlighted the absence of any evidence linking the appellants to the manipulation, even in the inquiry report and the FIR. The fact that the appellants were not named as accused in the criminal case and that no action was taken against the school, further strengthened the Court’s view that the appellants were innocent.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the appellants were not at fault and the State could not have abruptly stopped their salaries. The court relied on the principle that an individual should not be penalized for the fault of the employer, especially when no evidence of wrongdoing was found against them. The court also emphasized that the appointments of the appellants were approved and not cancelled and that they had been working for a considerable period.

The Court rejected the State’s argument that the entire selection process was vitiated due to fraud. The Court held that the fraud was at the school level and that the appellants were not involved. The Court also noted that the State did not take any action against the school and that the school continues to receive aid.

The Court stated, “There is not an iota of material to demonstrate how the appellants, who were applicants from the open market, were guilty of colluding in the manipulation.”

The Court further observed, “It will be a travesty of justice if relief is denied to the appellants. Enormous prejudice would also occur to them.”

The Court also noted, “The situation of the appellants in the present case is no different from the individuals whose appointments were protected in the cases cited hereinabove. They had no blameworthy conduct. They were bona fide applicants from the open market.”

The Court also considered the fact that the appointment order and the approval order were still in force, and that the appellants have always been and are deemed to be in service.

Key Takeaways

• Employees should not be penalized for the fraudulent actions of their employers if they are not involved in the fraud.
• If an employee has been working for a considerable period and there is no evidence of wrongdoing on their part, their services should not be terminated abruptly.
• The State cannot stop the salaries of employees without a valid reason, especially when the employees are not at fault.
• Appointment orders and approval orders remain valid until they are revoked.
• In cases of manipulation by the employer, the State should take action against the employer and not against the innocent employees.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The State shall pay the salaries of the appellants for the period from June 25, 1999, till January 2002 in full.
• The State shall pay the appellants 50% of the back wages for the period from October 2005 till the date of the judgment.
• The appellants are deemed to be in service, and all consequential benefits, including seniority, notional promotion, if any, and fitment of salary and other service benefits due, shall be granted to them.
• The State shall comply with these directions within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
• The appellants shall be allowed to commence work within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
• The State was granted liberty to issue a show-cause notice to the Committee of Management, Junior High School, Bahorikpur, regarding the alleged manipulation of the sanction order.
• The State was granted liberty to recover one-third of the arrears from the Committee of Management if they are found guilty of the manipulation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that employees should not be penalized for the fraudulent actions of their employers if they are not involved in the fraud. This judgment reinforces the principle that an individual should not suffer for the fault of others, particularly when they have acted in good faith and have no knowledge of any wrongdoing. This case also reiterates the importance of natural justice and fair treatment in employment matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgments. The Court held that the teachers were not at fault for the manipulation of sanctioned posts by the school management and should not be penalized. The Court ordered the State to pay the teachers their full salaries from June 25, 1999, to January 2002, 50% of their back wages from October 2005, and all consequential benefits. The Court emphasized that the teachers were deemed to be in service and should be allowed to resume work. This judgment protects the rights of innocent employees and underscores the importance of fair treatment in employment matters.