Supreme Court: Illegal Appointments Invalidate Right to Continued Service and Salary Claims
In a legal matter involving an Assistant teacher seeking the release of her unpaid salary from 2001 onwards, the Supreme
trueasdfstory
Supreme Court: Illegal Appointments Invalidate Right to Continued Service and Salary Claims In a legal matter involving an Assistant teacher seeking the release of her unpaid salary from 2001 onwards, the Supreme Court recently ruled that when an appointment has been officially declared as illegal and void ab initio by the Director of Elementary Education in Assam back in 2001, it...
Supreme Court: Illegal Appointments Invalidate Right to Continued Service and Salary Claims
In a legal matter involving an Assistant teacher seeking the release of her unpaid salary from 2001 onwards, the Supreme Court recently ruled that when an appointment has been officially declared as illegal and void ab initio by the Director of Elementary Education in Assam back in 2001, it becomes unsustainable to remain in service without contesting the order of cancellation.
The Court ruled that the appellant's failure to challenge the cancellation order prevents her from asserting a legal entitlement to persist in her role and, by extension, from making claims for unpaid salary.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, observed that given the declaration of the appellant's appointment as illegal and void from the outset, and its subsequent cancellation by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, as per an order dated October 18, 2001, the appellant was not entitled to remain in service unless the said cancellation order was challenged and revoked.
Notably, the Gauhati High Court had noted that the appellant had never contested the order dated October 18, 2001. Consequently, the appellant lacked a legitimate basis to persist in her role, especially in the absence of any official communication or documentation that allowed her to continue employment beyond March 31, 2002. As such, she was ineligible to claim salary for any duration beyond this point.
The Bench was presiding over an appeal contesting a judgement delivered by the Gauhati High Court. The High Court had rejected the appellant's plea for the disbursement of unpaid salary dating back to 2001, during her tenure as an Assistant teacher in Assam.
The Apex Court Bench expressed doubt regarding the credibility of a situation in which an individual worked for an extensive duration of almost two decades without receiving any remuneration.
“Even otherwise, it is difficult to believe that a person has been working for two decades without any salary. Even the writ petition was filed by her in the High Court in the year 2008, claiming salary from 12.03.2001 onwards i.e., seven years later,” the Bench observed while refusing to interfere in the High Court’s concurrent finding of fact and dismissed the appeal.
In this particular case, the appellant asserted that she had been designated as an Assistant Teacher at Bengabari M.E. School, with her appointment purportedly being linked to the vacancies within the Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency.
The Sub-Divisional Selection Board, in a meeting held on March 12, 2001, was purported to have designated her based on an advertisement issued by the competent authority on December 28, 1996. This advertisement was intended to facilitate the appointment of regular Assistant Teachers throughout the area.
However, the Court observed that the appellant had not received an appointment letter in accordance with the aforementioned advertisement. Rather, she was presented with an appointment letter dated March 12, 2001, issued by the District Elementary Education Officer in Mangaldoi, Darrang District. This document confirmed her appointment as an Assistant Teacher at Bengabari M.E. School, an institution situated in Mangaldoi, which is a sub-division of Darrang District. This location is not within the initially stated affiliation with the Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency.
The Court noted that the appellant's appointment letter did not contain any indication that her appointment was a result of any specific advertisement or selection process.
It was also discovered by the court that through an order dated October 18, 2001, the Director of Elementary Education declared several appointments, including the appellant's, which were made by the District Elementary Education Officer in Mangaldoi, Darrang, as null and void. This was because these appointments had been made for positions that did not exist.