Supreme Court Upholds Inquiry into Irregular Teacher Appointments: Ramesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)

Date of the Judgment: March 3, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 210
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Indu Malhotra, J.
Can a government official, accused of making irregular appointments, claim protection under orders from higher authorities? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the appointment of Assistant Teachers in Uttar Pradesh. The court upheld a High Court decision that ordered a fresh inquiry into the matter, emphasizing the need to follow due process and principles of natural justice. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to established rules and procedures in public appointments. The bench consisted of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Indu Malhotra, with the judgment authored by Justice Indu Malhotra.

Case Background

The appellant, Ramesh Singh, was serving as the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari (District Basic Education Officer) in Basti, Uttar Pradesh, in January 2003. He also held the additional charge of District Basic Education Officer in Gorakhpur. During April to June 2003, Singh issued appointment letters to 400 candidates in Gorakhpur and 121 candidates in Basti, all of whom held B.Ed. degrees, for the position of Assistant Teachers in primary schools. The State of Uttar Pradesh, on July 24, 2003, suspended Singh and initiated a departmental inquiry against him for allegedly violating the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The disciplinary proceedings against Ramesh Singh began with a charge sheet on August 21, 2003, alleging that the appointments were made in violation of Rules 16 and 19(3) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty, leading to a proposed punishment of removal from service on January 10, 2006. The High Court intervened multiple times, staying the suspension and proposed removal orders. After the State withdrew the proposed punishment on May 19, 2010, the High Court directed that the disciplinary proceedings be concluded within six months. A second show cause notice was issued, and after a personal hearing, Singh was again ordered to be removed from service on June 27, 2017. The Allahabad High Court partly allowed Singh’s writ petition, quashing the dismissal order due to violations of natural justice, and ordered a fresh inquiry from the charge sheet stage. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, modifying it to have the Chief Secretary appoint the inquiry officer.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Key provisions include:

• Rule 2(b): Defines the “Appointing Authority” as the District Basic Education Officer.
• Rule 8: Specifies the academic qualifications for Assistant Teachers, requiring a Bachelor’s Degree and a training qualification like a Basic Teacher’s Certificate (BTC). The relevant portion of the rule states:
  
  “8. Academic qualifications. – (1) The Essential qualifications of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in clause (a) of Rule 5 shall be shown below against each :
  Post Academic Qualifications
  …
  (ii) Assistant A Bachelor’s Degree from a
  Master and
  Assistant
  Mistress of
  Junior Basic
  Schools University established by law
  in India or a Degree
  recognized by the
  Government as equivalent
  thereto together with the
  training qualification
  consisting of a Basic
  Teacher’s Certificate, Vishshit
  Basic Teacher’s Certificate
  (B.T.C), Hindustani teacher’s
  Certificate, Junior Teacher’s
  Certificate, Certificate of
  teaching or any other Training
  Course recognized by the
  Government as equivalent
  thereto.”
• Rule 16: Mandates the constitution of a Selection Committee for appointments, including the Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training, the District Basic Education Officer, and other members. The rule states:
  
  “16. Constitution of Selection Committee – For selection of candidates for appointment to any post under these Rules , there shall be constituted a Selection Committee comprising –
  a) Principal, District Institute
  of Education and Training
  – Chairman
  b) District Basic Education
  Officer
  – Member -Secretary
  c) Principal , Government Girl ’s
  Intermediate College at the
  District Head -quarters
  – Member
  d) District Non -Formal
  Education Officer
  e) – Member
  f) One Specialist in Hindu,
  Urdu or other languages, as
  the case may be,
  nominated by District
  Magistrate – Member
  …”
• Rule 19(3): Stipulates that no appointment can be made without the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The rule states:
  
  “19. Appointment. –
  …
  (3) No appointment shall be made except with the
  recommendation of the Selection Committee , and in
  the case of direct recruitment except on production of
  residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar. ”

These rules are designed to ensure that appointments are made in a fair and transparent manner, with qualified candidates being selected through a proper process. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant, as the District Basic Education Officer, was bound by these rules.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the appointments were made under pressure from the government and in compliance with the orders of the High Court. He cited a letter dated April 10, 2003, from the Secretary, Basic Education, directing compliance with High Court orders regarding teacher appointments.
• The appellant also referred to his letter dated April 18, 2003, requesting directives for appointing candidates with B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed. qualifications.
• He further submitted that he had informed the Secretary, Basic Education, on April 21, 2003, about vacant teacher posts in Gorakhpur and the lack of provision for appointing candidates with B.Ed./L.T./ B.PEd./C.P.Ed. qualifications.
• The appellant contended that he issued a notification on April 25, 2003, to appoint B.Ed./L.T. candidates after discussions with the Chief Minister and other officials, under threat of departmental proceedings if appointments were not made immediately.
• He stated that he sought advice from the Chief Standing Counsel, who advised taking a decision with the consent of the Government.
• The appellant also relied on a letter dated May 6, 2003, to the Secretary, Basic Education Council, seeking instructions on appointing candidates with higher qualifications.
• He cited a letter dated May 28, 2003, directing appointments only in cases with High Court orders by June 2, 2003.
• The appellant relied on the Allahabad High Court judgment in Special Appeal No. 21(SB)/1993 and Firoz Alam Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1986 UP LBC 674, which allowed appointment of qualified candidates if B.T.C. trained candidates were unavailable. He also cited Mohd. Riazul Usman Ghani and Ors. v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur, (2000) 2 SCC 606, where the Supreme Court held that denying consideration to candidates with higher qualifications is irrational.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the appellant made appointments without following the procedure prescribed in the 1981 Rules, specifically Rules 16 and 19(3).
• The State alleged serious corruption against the appellant, which required a full inquiry.
• The State highlighted that all appointments made by the appellant were declared void ab initio.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant innovatively argued that he was compelled to make the appointments due to pressure from higher authorities and in compliance with High Court orders. He also attempted to justify his actions by citing previous judgments that allowed for the appointment of candidates with higher qualifications when trained candidates were not available. However, the core issue remained whether the due process of law was followed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appointment letters issued to 521 candidates holding B.Ed. degrees for the post of Assistant Teachers were made in accordance with the mandatory procedures prescribed by the Rules.

The court also considered whether the continued suspension of the appellant was justified and whether the disciplinary authority should report the matter to the Chief Minister.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure adherence to the rule of law and principles of natural justice in public appointments. The Court emphasized that the District Basic Education Officer was bound by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, and could not bypass the mandatory procedures for appointments. The Court also took note of the fact that the High Court had found that the inquiry was not conducted in a manner that was consistent with the principles of natural justice. The Court also recognized the seriousness of the allegations of corruption against the appellant. The court was of the view that a full and fair inquiry was necessary to determine the truth of the allegations.

The court’s reasoning was primarily focused on ensuring that the legal framework for appointments was followed. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the court’s decision was heavily influenced by the legal requirements of the 1981 Rules and the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for a fresh inquiry. The court emphasized that the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, providing the appellant with a full opportunity to present his case. The court also directed that the inquiry officer should be appointed by the Chief Secretary to ensure impartiality. The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court stated:

“We uphold the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority , which would be conducted from the stage of the charge sheet . The disciplinary authority will conduct the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, after giving a full opportunity of hearing to the appellant , who will be allowed to produce both oral and documentary evidence.”

The court also directed that:

“The appellant will continue to remain under suspension during the period of enquiry. The enquiry is directed to be completed within a period of 4 months.”

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment to the extent that the inquiry officer be appointed by the Chief Secretary. The court stated:

“We modify the impugned judgement to the extent that the enquiry officer be appointed by the Chief Secretary.”

The court further clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case:

“It is clarified that there is no expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.”

Key Takeaways

• Public officials must strictly adhere to the prescribed rules and procedures when making appointments.
• Any deviation from the established process can lead to disciplinary action and legal challenges.
• The principles of natural justice must be followed in all disciplinary inquiries, ensuring a fair opportunity for the accused to present their case.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in public appointments.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The disciplinary authority should conduct a fresh inquiry from the stage of the charge sheet.
• The inquiry should be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
• The appellant should be given a full opportunity to present his case, including producing oral and documentary evidence.
• The inquiry officer should be appointed by the Chief Secretary.
• The inquiry should be completed within a period of 4 months.
• The appellant should remain under suspension during the period of the inquiry.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that public officials, particularly those involved in appointments, must strictly adhere to the prescribed rules and procedures. The case reinforces the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the existing rules and procedures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision to order a fresh inquiry into the irregular appointments made by Ramesh Singh. The Court emphasized the need to follow due process and the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. The judgment serves as a reminder that public officials must adhere to the prescribed rules and procedures and cannot bypass them under the guise of orders from higher authorities. The case underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in public appointments.

Category

• Service Law
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Suspension
  • Appointment Rules
  • U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981
  • Rule 2(b), U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981
  • Rule 8, U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981
  • Rule 16, U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981
  • Rule 19(3), U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981
• Administrative Law
  • Natural Justice
  • Rule of Law
  • Public Appointments

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Ramesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case?
A: The main issue was whether the appointment letters issued by Ramesh Singh, as District Basic Education Officer, to 521 candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers were made in compliance with the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision to order a fresh inquiry into the matter. The Court emphasized that the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the rules for appointments.

Q: What are the key rules that were violated in this case?
A: The key rules violated were Rules 16 and 19(3) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. These rules mandate that appointments must be made based on the recommendation of a Selection Committee.

Q: What does the principle of natural justice mean in this context?
A: The principle of natural justice means that Ramesh Singh should be given a fair opportunity to present his case, including the right to be heard, to produce evidence, and to have a fair and impartial inquiry.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment for public officials?
A: The judgment emphasizes that public officials must strictly adhere to the prescribed rules and procedures when making appointments. Any deviation can lead to disciplinary action and legal challenges. It also highlights the need for transparency and accountability in public appointments.

Q: What does it mean that the appointments were declared void ab initio?
A: “Void ab initio” means that the appointments were invalid from the beginning. This indicates that the appointments were considered to have no legal effect.

Q: What was the reason for ordering a fresh inquiry?
A: The High Court found that the original inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for a fair and impartial inquiry.