The Supreme Court has handed down a ₹10,00,000 (Ten Lakh Rupees) penalty to the Madhya Pradesh Government for failing to comply with a High Court order, which had directed the state to appoint a contract-based ‘Samvida Shikshak’. The apex court has ordered that the fine be recovered from the officials responsible for the deliberate, illegal, and mala fide actions that prevented the teacher from receiving her rightful appointment.
In overturning part of the High Court’s decision, which had denied full relief to the teacher despite acknowledging the wrongful denial of her appointment, Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that the High Court’s failure to grant restitutive relief was unjust. The bench noted that despite the teacher having successfully passed the selection exam on August 31, 2008, she was denied the benefits of her success due to the state’s misuse of an amended rule, which was applied retroactively and unjustly.
The court criticized the state government’s efforts to circumvent the High Court’s orders by implementing a new notification in 2018, retroactively affecting the recruitment process from January 2008. Justice Sandeep Mehta, authoring the judgment, stated that this action was a blatant attempt to deny the appellant and her peers their rightful appointments, despite clear judicial orders to the contrary.
Drawing from the precedent set in Manoj Kumar v. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court asserted the teacher’s entitlement to restitutive relief and compensation for the undue suffering caused by the state’s arbitrary and highhanded actions.
The court’s directive includes:
- Immediate appointment of the teacher to the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III or an equivalent position within 60 days.
- Recognition of the appointment as effective from the date of the initial selection process in 2008.
- Continuity of service for the teacher, though without back wages, along with exemplary costs quantified at ₹10,00,000 to be paid by the state within 60 days.
- An enquiry by the state government to recover the ₹10,00,000 from the responsible officials.
The bench underscored that the purpose of these measures was to address the injury suffered by the teacher due to the prolonged litigation and the highhanded approach of the state officials.
The court’s order reflects a broader judicial trend towards ensuring accountability and justice in administrative actions, as seen in similar recent cases.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, enforcing these directions to uphold the teacher’s lawful entitlement and ensure restitution for the undue hardships faced.
