STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. ANITA
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-122
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
September 24,2014
STATE OF PUNJAB
Appellant
VERSUS
ANITA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JYOTI K K VS. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]P M LATHA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH KUMAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF NTC DELHI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
AVINASH KOUNDAL VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(HPH)-2020-7-27] [REFERRED TO]DHARUN K. VS. SHINO M. GOPAL [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-175] [REFERRED TO]
PUNEET SHARMA & ORS. ETC. VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. & ANR. ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2020-10-66] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP JANGIR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
AJITH K. VS. ANEESH K. S. [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL WAHID PEDHAR VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR; DIRECTOR, SCHOOL EDUCATION; CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER; ZONAL EDUCATION OFFICER; SH REYAZ AHMED PEDHAR [LAWS(J&K)-2016-2-31] [REFERRED]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. K. MATHUKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-133] [REFERRED TO]
AAKASH VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. AAKASH VERMA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-122] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANDRA JOSHI AND ANOTHER; KAMAL KISHORE JOSHI AND ANOTHER ; NANDAN BAN GOSWAMI; STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER VS. RAKESH NEGI AND OTHERS ; STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS ; MUKESH RAWAT [LAWS(UTN)-2016-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI VS. S. JEYALAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-171] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR STATE POWER (HOLDING) COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VS. MD ASIF HUSSAIN SON OF MD RASHID HUSSAIN [LAWS(PAT)-2018-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
AMBARISH KUMAR S. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-668] [REFERRED TO]
SURJEET PHOUNSA VS. J&K SSB AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION VS. PAWAN THAKUR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-8-137] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-212] [REFERRED TO]
BAL KRISHANA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
M. VIJAYALAKSHMI VS. CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ANIT KUMAR DAS [LAWS(SC)-2020-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL KUMAR BALMIKI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(UTN)-2023-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
MAIPHAI HONGCHUI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2019-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
SUREKHA RANA VS. RAJASTHAN SUBORDINATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-2-222] [REFERRED TO]
KHURSHEED AHMAD LONE VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-11-55] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-3-985] [REFERRED TO]
LALRAMMAWIA VS. MIZORAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(GAU)-2019-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-194] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL KUMAR BALMIKI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-202] [REFERRED TO]
K NAGAIAH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF TELANGANA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, ANIMAL H [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
K. NAGAIAH AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-111] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWEAGE BOARD VS. AMBARISH KUMAR S. [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-117] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
UTTARAKHAND PEYJAL SANSADHAN EVAM NIRMAN NIGAM VS. TRIPTI THAPLIYAL [LAWS(UTN)-2019-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHOOR AHMAD RATHER AND ORS ETC VS. SHEIKH IMTIYAZ AHMAD AND ORS ETC [LAWS(SC)-2018-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG LAL & OTHERS; RAM NARESH GURJAR & OTHERS; VINEET NAGAR & OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-81] [REFERRED]
DINESH KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2024-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
KETANKUMAR SHANABHAI KOTWAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-1330] [REFERRED TO]
RAHULKUMAR HARESHKUMAR JOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-2107] [REFERRED TO]
R. RAMA RAO VS. THE RAILWAY BOARD AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER VS. RITU AGARWAL [LAWS(UTN)-2016-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
HON BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND VS. MAN MOHAN TRIPATHI & ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2018-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
KARTIK KATWAL VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(HPH)-2023-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
AMJAD GANI VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-438] [REFERRED TO]
SANGRAM S/O RAMDAS GHOLVE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR RAJAK VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
PRAJNYA PARIMITA BARIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2016-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
BANI DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF SELF FINANCING UNIVERSITIES OF RAJASTHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-7-111] [REFERRED TO]
MR. AMBARISH KUMAR S. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
SHYNI C.B. VS. CHITRA BHANU M.K. [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-93] [REFERRED TO]
ROBIN KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2020-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESHKUMAR DASHARATHLAL PATEL VS. CHAIRMAN [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-298] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The Management of the Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr, issued an advertisement in the Indian Express dated 25.05.2002, inviting applications for six vacant posts of JBT/ETT teachers. Since the controversy, being adjudicated upon, is substantially to be determined on the basis of the contents of the advertisement, the above advertisement dated 25.05.2002 is being extracted hereunder:
"Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr Wanted following dedicated, talented, trained and experienced teachers against six vacant JBT/ETT aided posts preferably one M.A. English, one M.Sc. Chem., One M.Sc. Bio, M.Com., one M.Sc. Maths, one M.A. Eco and one Watchman. Apply Principal afresh within ten days alongwith testimonials. Reservation exists as per Govt. rules.
Sd/-
Principal, Doaba Arya Sr. Sec. School,
Nawanshahr.
(2.)The private respondents were selected against the six advertised posts, by the Managing Committee of the above school. Despite their selection and consequential appointment, the State Government did not accord its approval. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the private respondents, i.e., the selected JBT/ETT teachers issue a notice dated 1.2.2004, wherein they sought approval of the State Government, as also, wages for the period they had been discharging their duties. Since, they did not receive any response to the legal notice dated 1.2.2004, the private respondents approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court') by filing Civil Writ Petition No.6789 of 2004. Rather than examining the merits of the controversy, the High Court by its order dated 27.04.2004, required the State Government to take a decision on the legal notice, issued by the private respondents. It is therefore, that the District Education Officer, Nawanshahr (hereinafter referred to as the 'DEO') passed an order dated 04.4.2005, declining the claim of the private respondents. A perusal of the speaking order passed by the DEO, inter alia, reveals, that the private respondents had been appointed in violation of the statutory rules regulating appointments to privately managed recognised schools. It was also indicated in the order dated 04.4.2005, that the selection process was not in consonance with the statutory rules.
(3.)The order passed by the DEO dated 04.4.2005 was assailed by the private respondents before the High Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 15599 of 2006. The same came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 2.7.2007. A perusal of the impugned order reveals, that the High Court emphatically placed reliance on an earlier litigation in respect of the same selection process, wherein a Division Bench of the High Court, while disposing of civil writ petition No. 13979 of 2002 (by order dated 16.2.2004), had found the petitioner therein not possessing superior qualifications to the private respondent no.4, whose selection was sought to be assailed. The High Court had also, while disposing of civil writ petition no.13979 of 2002, rejected the contention advanced at the hands of the petitioner therein, that the process of selection was vitiated on account of bias.
"Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr Wanted following dedicated, talented, trained and experienced teachers against six vacant JBT/ETT aided posts preferably one M.A. English, one M.Sc. Chem., One M.Sc. Bio, M.Com., one M.Sc. Maths, one M.A. Eco and one Watchman. Apply Principal afresh within ten days alongwith testimonials. Reservation exists as per Govt. rules.
Sd/-
Principal, Doaba Arya Sr. Sec. School,
Nawanshahr.
(2.)The private respondents were selected against the six advertised posts, by the Managing Committee of the above school. Despite their selection and consequential appointment, the State Government did not accord its approval. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the private respondents, i.e., the selected JBT/ETT teachers issue a notice dated 1.2.2004, wherein they sought approval of the State Government, as also, wages for the period they had been discharging their duties. Since, they did not receive any response to the legal notice dated 1.2.2004, the private respondents approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court') by filing Civil Writ Petition No.6789 of 2004. Rather than examining the merits of the controversy, the High Court by its order dated 27.04.2004, required the State Government to take a decision on the legal notice, issued by the private respondents. It is therefore, that the District Education Officer, Nawanshahr (hereinafter referred to as the 'DEO') passed an order dated 04.4.2005, declining the claim of the private respondents. A perusal of the speaking order passed by the DEO, inter alia, reveals, that the private respondents had been appointed in violation of the statutory rules regulating appointments to privately managed recognised schools. It was also indicated in the order dated 04.4.2005, that the selection process was not in consonance with the statutory rules.
(3.)The order passed by the DEO dated 04.4.2005 was assailed by the private respondents before the High Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 15599 of 2006. The same came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 2.7.2007. A perusal of the impugned order reveals, that the High Court emphatically placed reliance on an earlier litigation in respect of the same selection process, wherein a Division Bench of the High Court, while disposing of civil writ petition No. 13979 of 2002 (by order dated 16.2.2004), had found the petitioner therein not possessing superior qualifications to the private respondent no.4, whose selection was sought to be assailed. The High Court had also, while disposing of civil writ petition no.13979 of 2002, rejected the contention advanced at the hands of the petitioner therein, that the process of selection was vitiated on account of bias.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.