NAZIRA BEGUM LASHKAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 07-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

NAZIRA BEGUM LASHKAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2000 
(G.B. PATTANAIK, S. RAJENDRA BABU AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B 
Education : 
Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977: 
Assistant Teachers-Appointment of-Without following prescribed 
procedure under Recruitment Rules-Validity of-Held: Such appointments 
would not confer any right on the appointee nor such appointees can claim 
c 
any equitable relief-Since the appointments were terminated within a short 
period there is no question of such appointments continuing/or any unusually D 
long period so as to merit a humanitarian consideratio~Assam Elementary 
Education (Provincia/isation) Act, 1974. 
The appellants were appointed as Assistant Teachers in different 
Primary Schools of the State without following the prescribed procedure under 
the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. The E 
respondent-State, after giving show cause notices to the appellants, had 
cancelled these appointments. High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed 
by the appellants. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appell~nts it was contended that the appellants had been 
working as teachers for a considerable number of years and, therefore, this F 
Court should direct adjustment of equities in- their cases; that the 
appointments were made under a special project called "Operation Black 
Board"; that there was substantial compliance of the Recruitment Rules and, 
therefore, the appointments of the appellants could not have been annulled by 
the High Court. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The appellants had not made out any special case that the 
appointments had been made under a special project called "Operation Black 
Board" and as such, the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education H 
421 
422 
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 need not be complied with and the 
appointments had been bona fide made by the competent authority and the 
appointees possess the requisite qualification. (428-G) 
1.2. Since the appointments to the posts are governed by a set of statutory 
rules, and the prescribed procedure therein had not been followed and on the 
B other hand appointments have been made indiscriminately, immediately after 
the posts were allotted to different districts at the behest of some unseen 
hands, such appointments would not confer any right on the appointee nor 
such appointee can claim even any equitable relief from any Court. That apart, 
the appointments stood annulled hardly after six months from the date of 
C appointments and the appointees cannot claim to be continuing for an unusually 
long period, so as to claim a humanitarian consideration in their cases. 
(429-E-F) 
Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1997) 2 SCC 1; Arun Kumar Rout v. 
State of Bihar, 11998) 9 SCC 71 and H.C. Puttaswamy v. Chief Justice of 
D Karnataka High Court, (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 421, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 278 of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.97 of the Gauhati High 
E Court in W.A. No. 61of1955. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 296/1999, C.A. No. 286/1999, C.A. No:287/1999, C.A No. 295/1999, 
C.A. Nos. 279-285/1999 And C.A. Nos. 288-294/1999. 
F Sudhir Chandra, M.N. Krishnamani, Sanjay Parikh/ Ejaz Maqbool, Braj K. 
Mishra, Ranji Thomas, S.K. Sharma, S. Pani, AshisWKapil, Atul Sharma, Alok 
Sangwan, Sudarsh Menon, Ms. lndu Malhotra, S.A. Sayed, Vijay Hansaria, 
Sunil Kumar Jain, S. Borthakur, Ms. Sushma Sharma, K. Sharda Devi, Sunil 
Gupta, J.K. Bhatia and A.K. Gupta for the appearing parties. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. In this batch ofappeals, the judgment of the Division 
Bench of Gauhati High Court is under challenge. In Civil Appeal No. 278 of 
1999, the appellants had been appointed as Assistant Teachers of Primary 
Schools in the year 1990. But those appointments were cancelled by the State 
H Government, after giving show cause notice to the appellants inasmuch as the 
NAZIRA BEGUM LASHKAR v. STATE [PATTANAIK, J.] 
423 
appointments had been made, though no posts were available and the A 
appointments had been made, not in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 
The order of cancellation had been assailed in the High Court by filing writ 
petition and the learned Single Judge by a cryptic order, without focusing 
attention to the relevant criteria, allowed the same. The State had assaile

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.