Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a former Instructor in a Non-Formal Educational Centre, was selected for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III in an examination held on 31st August 2008. However, the State Government denied her appointment citing an amendment to Rule 7-A of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005, which made her ineligible. The appellant challenged the amendment, and the High Court quashed it in 2012, directing the State to consider her appointment under the unamended criteria. Despite this and subsequent orders, the State repeatedly rejected her claim, even after the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition. In 2018, the State retrospectively amended Rule 7-A with effect from 1st January 2008 to further deny her claim. By the time the matter reached the Division Bench, the post had been abolished, and the appellant had become overage. The Division Bench allowed the State's appeal but awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. The Supreme Court, hearing the appellant's appeal, found the State's conduct to be mala fide and arbitrary. It held that the High Court erred in not granting appointment or adequate compensation. Relying on Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized the duty of constitutional courts to provide restitution for illegal administrative actions. Since appointment was no longer possible, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,00,000, payable within eight weeks, with interest at 6% per annum if delayed. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were modified accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III - Denial of Appointment - The appellant, an ex-Instructor, was selected in 2008 but denied appointment due to an amended rule (Rule 7-A) which was struck down by the High Court. Despite repeated court orders, the State continued to deny appointment and retrospectively amended the rule to circumvent orders. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not granting appointment or adequate compensation, and enhanced compensation to Rs. 5,00,000. (Paras 2-10) B) Constitutional Law - Restitution - Public Law Proceedings - Duty of Constitutional Courts - The Supreme Court, relying on Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, held that constitutional courts have a duty to provide restitution for arbitrary and illegal administrative actions, even if the primary relief (appointment) is unattainable due to passage of time. Compensation is a secondary measure to address injurious consequences. (Paras 9-10) C) Administrative Law - Mala Fides - Retrospective Amendment - The State's action of retrospectively amending Rule 7-A to deny appointment despite court orders was held to be mala fide and arbitrary. Such conduct warrants enhanced compensation to remedy the injustice caused to the appellant. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in denying appointment to the appellant despite holding that the denial was illegal, and whether compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 was adequate given the prolonged arbitrary conduct of the State.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Impugned orders modified. State directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation to the appellant within eight weeks, failing which interest at 6% per annum from the date of this order until payment.
Law Points
- Restitution in public law
- mala fide administrative action
- retrospective amendment to circumvent court orders
- compensation for illegal denial of appointment
