LexGOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. versus K. BRAHMANANDAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 140 A GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. v K. BRAHMANANDAM AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.3043 of 2008) B APRIL 29, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Service Law: Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, c Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools Under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 - Appointment of Respondent-school teachers - Without following procedural aspects laid down in the Rules - Services of Respondents not approved - Nor were they paid any salary- They filed writ D petition - High Court grnnted relief - Liability to bear financi?I burden for payment of wages to Respondents - On State or "" on the concerned school - Contention of Appellant-State that it has no liability to pay salary of Respondents since their services had not been approved - Held: Appointments made E in violation of the mandatory provisions of a statute would be illegal and, thus, void -· //legality cannot be regularized, only an irregularity can be - Thus, question of regularizing the services of RespondEmts does not arise -Respondents, however, entitled to salary from school authorities as they F worked even if no valid contract came into being - Salary amount payable in terms of s. 70 of the Contract Act - Doctrine ~ ' of quasi-contract cannot be applied in a situation of this nature as against the State - Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.14 and 16 - Doctrines - G Doctrine of quasi-contract - Contract Act, 1872 - s. 70. Respondents were appointed as school teachers. Allegedly, provisions of the recruitment rules laid down ,\, -. by G.O.Ms No.1 dated 1-1-1994 was not followed in the recruitment process. The said rules i.e. the Andhra I H 140 GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. v. K. BRAHMANANDAM AND 141 ' ~ ORS. Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, A Recognition, Administration and Control Of Schools Under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 were framed by the State in exercise of the power conferred upon it under s.99 read with ss. 20, 21, 79, 80 and 83 of the Andhra ~ Pradesh Education Act, 1982. B Respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court contending that though they were appointed through due selection process and had put up sufficient length of service, neither their appointments were approved nor they have been paid any salary till date. The c \ High Court inter alia held that only because the procedural aspects had not been followed as per the said GOMs No. 1 dated 1-1-1994, the same would not bar grant of relief in favour of Respondents since they were working for "' several years and furthermore possessed minimum D qualification . .. The question involved in the present appeal is whether the State or the school concerned is liable to bear the financial burden for payment of wages to the E Respondents. The contention of Appellant-State is that it J has no liability to pay the salary of Respondents since their services had not been approved. A Partly allowing the appeal, the Court •-' ' HELD: 1. The liability of the State to pay salary to a F ~ teacher appointed in the recognized schools would arise provided the provisions of the statutory rules are complied with, subject to just exception. The right to claim salary must arise under a contract or under a statute. If such a right arises under a contract between the appointee and G - ~ the institution, only the latter would be liable therefor. Its right in certain situation to claim reimbursement of such salary from the State would only arise in terms of the law as was prevailing at the relevant time. If the State in terms of the statute is not liable to pay the salary to the teachers, H 142 SUPREME COURT Fi:EPORTS [2008) 7 S.C.R A no legal right accrues in favour of those who had been appointed in violation of mandatory provisions of the statute or statutory rules. [Para 11] [146-G; 147-A, B] B Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 454 - referred to. 2. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution must b1~ scrupulously followed. The Court ordinarily would not issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus for regularization of the service of the c employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. [Para 12J [147-8, CJ 3.1. Appointments made in violation of the mandatory provisions of a statute would be illegal and, thus, void. Illegality canno
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.