Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on May 3, 2024 directed the Madhya Pradesh government to pay Rs 10 lakh as a restitutive relief to a woman who was denied to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III due to deliberate, illegal and malafide action.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta ordered the state government to appoint her to the post or its equivalent within 60 days, which would be without prejudice to the proceedings of contempt contemplated by the High Court in the order on May 7, 2022.

Appellant Smita Shrivastava challenged the High Court's orders in writ appeal and the review petition which 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. 

"It is a glaring case wherein the adamant, arbitrary, mala fide and high-handed approach of the State Government and its officials has driven the appellant to a series of prolonged litigations which were evidently not out of her choice," the bench said. 

The court noted in spite of having passed the selection exam held for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III way back on August 31, 2008, the appellant did not reap the fruits of her success. The State Government took the shield of an amended rule i.e. Rule 7-A, issued on July 29, 2009 for denying relief to the appellant herein, even when the said rule had no retrospective application. 

"Not only this, in spite of the High Court having struck down the said rule and passing repeated orders in favour of the appellant, another notification dated 21 st March, 2018 was issued making the amended rule effective from 1st January, 2008 i.e. prior to the date of recruitment. This was clearly a mala fide action in an attempt to circumvent the orders passed by the High Court by hook or by crook so as to prevent the appellant and her peers of their lawful claim to appointment which stood crystalised long back," the bench said.

The court pointed out, despite recognising all the unjustified orders faced by the appellant, the division bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh failed to provide restitutive relief to the appellant even after holding that she was illegally deprived of her lawful entitlement.

It found that there was no dispute that the 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 bench also noted the High Court took note of the fact that despite a clear-cut finding that the amended rule would not apply in the case of the appellant, the State Government has 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 March 21, 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 is in sheer contravention of the findings and conclusions recorded earlier," the bench said.

"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 highhanded action of the State Government and its officials," the bench added.

The court directed the state government to hold an enquiry and recover Rs 10 lakh from the officers who were responsible of taking deliberate, illegal, mala fide actions for denying relief to the appellant.

The bench directed the appointment order would be effective from the date on which the first appointment order pursuant to the selection process of August 31, 2008 came to be issued. It clarified the appellant would be entitled to continuity in service but she would not be entitled to back wages.

The appellant 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 exercising powers conferred upon it by sub-Section(1) of Section 95 read with sub-Section(2) of Section 70 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 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 on August 31, 2008. The appellant was permitted to participate in examination and 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.