‘Arbitrary and high- handed action of the State Government’: Apex Court directs appointment of candidate to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, grants her compensatory relief of Rs 10 lakh
Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta [03-05-2024]

Read Order: SMITA SHRIVASTAVA v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ETC [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5938-5940 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 6, 2024: While observing that the Madhya Pradesh Government had rejected a candidate’s legitimate claim, the Supreme Court has ordered her appointment to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III or an equivalent post within 60 days. The Top Court has also asked the State Govt to pay her Rs 10 lakh which can be recovered from the officers who were responsible for taking deliberate and illegal action against the candidate.

The appellant, in this case, was appointed as an Instructor in the Non-Formal Educational Centre established by the State Government in the year 1990. She worked on the said post till September 1, 1993. Later on, the State Government decided to abolish the post of Instructors. The State Government promulgated recruitment rules for the services of the Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-I, II and III in the name of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak(Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005.

The State Government conducted an examination for the selection of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in which the appellant was declared passed. However, no appointment order was forthcoming in her favour, whereupon she served a legal notice to the concerned authority but to no avail. The Rules of 2005 were amended on 29th July, 2009 whereby, sub Rule(2) was inserted in Rule 7-A to the effect that the candidates who were working on the post of Instructors in the Non- Formal Educational Centres were eligible to get appointment. The aforesaid amendment made the appellant ineligible to be appointed for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III as she had been discontinued from the job of Instructor with effect from 1st September, 1993 and accordingly, in view of the aforesaid amendment, the State Government denied appointment to the appellant herein which compelled her to institute litigation along with similarly situated ex-Instructors. 

The appellant approached the Top Court challenging the impugned judgments passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby, while allowing the writ appeal preferred by the respondent, the High Court refused to grant the relief of appointment to the appellant on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in spite of holding that denial of such appointment was grossly illegal and arbitrary. 

The Bench was of the opinion that this case was clearly covered by the judgment in Manoj Kumar v. Union of India and Others [LQ/SC/2024/167] where it has been observed that while the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside of administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions.

The Bench noted that appellant is presently of 59 years of age and can hold the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III till the age of 62 years. The High Court noticed that despite a clear-cut finding that the amended rule would not apply in the case of the appellant, the State Government had rejected her legitimate claim by relying on the amended rule. 

The High Court, on the one hand, thought it fit to proceed with contempt action against the erring officers of the State Government, but at the same time, denied relief to the appellant on the basis of notification of 2018 which makes the amended rule i.e. Rule 7-A effective retrospectively i.e., with effect from January 1, 2008. This observation of the High Court, according to the Bench, was in sheer contravention of the findings and conclusions recorded earlier.

“As a consequence, we are of the firm view that the appellant deserves a direction for restitutive relief along with compensation for the misery piled upon her owing to the arbitrary and high- handed action of the State Government and its officials”, the Bench held.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench held that the appellant shall forthwith be appointed to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III or an equivalent post within a period of 60 days. The appointment order has been held to be effective from the date on which the first appointment order pursuant to the selection process dated August 31, 2008 came to be issued.

The Bench concluded the matter by further directing, “The appellant shall be entitled to continuity in service. However, she shall not be entitled to back wages. However, she is granted exemplary cost quantified at Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). The above amount shall be paid to the appellant by the State of Madhya Pradesh within 60 days. The State Government shall hold an enquiry and recover the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the officer(s) who were responsible of taking deliberate, illegal, mala fide actions for denying relief to the appellant.”