A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of salary stoppage of three Assistant Teachers—Radhey Shyam Yadav, Lal Chandra Kharwar, and Ravindra Nath Yadav—appointed in Junior High School, Bahorikpur, Jaunpur, U.P. Despite being appointed in 1999 following a valid selection and approval process, their salaries were halted from October 2005. The State claimed manipulation in the sanctioning of teaching posts, asserting that only two additional posts were sanctioned in 1997, whereas the School allegedly fabricated a third post to hire an extra teacher. The Court found no evidence implicating the teachers in the alleged manipulation and ruled that they were bona fide applicants from the open market. It emphasized that the management and officials involved in the approval process were at fault, not the teachers. The Court directed the State to pay full salaries from their appointment date until 2002 and 50% of back wages from 2005 onwards, acknowledging the teachers’ legitimate claim to continued employment and benefits.

Keywords: Service Law, Stoppage of Salary, Bona Fide Applicants, Judicial Equity, Back Wages, Recruitment Manipulation

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgement Cause Title: Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
• Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 20-21 of 2024
• Judgement Date: 3 January 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: J.K. Maheshwari, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
• Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J.
• Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 21; 2024 INSC 7
• Legal Provisions Involved: Article 136, Article 21 (Right to Livelihood), Service Regulations
• Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• Case Related Law Subjects: Service Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case revolves around the alleged discrepancy in the number of sanctioned teaching positions in a government-aided school. Initially, only two additional Assistant Teacher positions were sanctioned in 1997 by the Director of Education, but the school management reportedly manipulated the records to create a third position. Following this, three teachers were hired, whose salaries were stopped without formal termination of their employment. The teachers sought relief in the High Court, which denied their request. The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court, which considered the legal propriety of withholding their salaries and examined the State’s responsibility in overseeing the alleged manipulation.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• The School initially operated as an unaided institution with a limited sanctioned staff, including four Assistant Teachers.
• In 1997, the Director of Education sanctioned two additional posts for Assistant Teachers, but the School’s management allegedly altered records to show three additional posts.
• Advertisements were issued, and a selection process took place with the State’s involvement. The selected candidates, including the three appellants, were appointed in 1999 after receiving due approvals.
• In 2005, the appellants’ salaries were suddenly stopped due to allegations that their positions were not properly sanctioned. An investigation alleged manipulation by the School’s management, with no evidence of involvement by the teachers.
• The High Court dismissed their pleas for salary disbursement, leading the teachers to appeal to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Was the State justified in abruptly stopping the appellants’ salaries without providing evidence of their involvement in alleged manipulation?
2. Whether the bona fide appointments of the teachers from the open market should suffer due to alleged manipulations by the School’s management.
3. What is the scope of relief for employees in cases where the employer’s mismanagement affects their employment rights?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. No Misconduct by Teachers: The appellants argued that they had no role in any alleged manipulation concerning the sanctioned posts and were legitimate appointees.
2. Due Process of Appointment: They highlighted that the selection process was conducted following State approval, which indicated that their appointments were valid and bona fide.
3. Equity and Justice: Emphasizing their long tenure of service, the appellants argued that denial of salary and benefits was unjust, especially in light of their innocence in the alleged manipulation.
4. Precedent of Judicial Protection: They cited cases such as Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494, which protected employees’ rights in situations where procedural irregularities were not their fault.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Manipulation of Sanctioned Posts: The respondent-State contended that only two additional teaching posts were sanctioned, and the School manipulated the numbers to show three.
2. No Obligation for Salaries Post-Manipulation: The State argued that since fraudulent representation underpinned the teachers’ positions, it was not bound to continue paying salaries.
3. Lack of Grounds for Judicial Interference: Relying on Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (2021), the State argued that manipulation of selection or recruitment processes warranted cancellation without compensation.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 136, Constitution of India: Allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment from any court or tribunal.
2. Article 21, Constitution of India: Protects the right to livelihood as part of the right to life, relevant for cases involving employment termination and salary cessation.
3. Service Regulations: Governing the employment rights and duties of state-aided institution employees.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. No Evidence of Teacher Involvement in Manipulation: The Court determined that the teachers’ innocence was established by the lack of evidence showing their role in the alleged fraud by the School’s management.
2. State Responsibility in Approved Appointments: The State’s approval of appointments and continued employment without termination orders necessitated that it compensate the teachers.
3. Principle of Judicial Equity: With reference to Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B v. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare (2005) 10 SCC 465, the Court reinforced that employees cannot be penalized for employer misconduct when their own conduct is lawful.

b. OBITER DICTA

1. The Court noted that absence of an explicit termination order and continued employment implied state acquiescence to the teachers’ appointments, further justifying relief.
2. Employment Continuity in Public Interest: The Court suggested that disturbing long-held positions without evidence of employee misconduct serves no public interest.

c. GUIDELINES

1. The State must reimburse the teachers for the period from 1999 to 2002 at full salary and provide 50% back wages for the time between October 2005 and present.
2. The teachers should be reinstated and allowed to resume duties within four weeks, with all consequential service benefits, including seniority and notional promotions.
3. State Inquiry Against School Management: The State is directed to investigate the school’s management for alleged manipulation and take appropriate recovery measures if found culpable.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that innocent employees should not suffer for administrative discrepancies they did not commit. This ruling aligns with prior case law protecting employees’ rights in the face of employer mismanagement. The judgment strengthens the rights of public employees by holding the State accountable for its procedural oversights and ensuring that public interest aligns with equitable treatment of bona fide employees.

K) REFERENCES

1. Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B v. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare, (2005) 10 SCC 465.
2. Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494.
3. Anmol Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, 2021 INSC 101; (2021) 5 SCC 424.
4. Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, 2021 (4) SCC 631.
5. Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690.
6. K. Ameer Khan v. A. Gangadharan, (2001) 9 SCC 84.
7. Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 INSC 1007.