SANJAI KUMAR & ORS. versus DR. PRABHAT KUMAR ETC.

Citation: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1111 · Decided: 13-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1111
SANJAI KUMAR & ORS.
v.
DR. PRABHAT KUMAR ETC.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.1332-1360 of 2018)
In
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014)
DECEMBER 13, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law – Assistant Teachers – Appointment of – The
Contempt Petition sought enforcement of interim orders dated
17.12.2014, 25.2.2015 and 7.12.2015 and the Judgment and final
order dated 25.7.2017 – There were total 72,825 vacancies for the
post of Assistant teachers and against the said posts 43,077 were
appointed, 15,058 were undergoing training – In pursuance of the
interim orders total 66,655 teachers were appointed – In 2018,
Contempt Petitions were filed submitting that though the State made
clear representation that the qualified persons would be appointed,
it did not appoint the Contempt Petitioners and as such the orders
passed by the Supreme Court were violated – It was contended that
the State Government had incorrectly calculated figure of 66,655,
there was no objection to issue appointment orders in respect of
12,091 candidates, including Contempt Petitioners – Held:
According to the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016, out of 12091
candidates, only 391 candidates were appointed as the others
either did not take part in the selection process or had not opted
for certain Districts or could not be selected going by the cut-off
for the concerned District – Thereafter, the State published another
advertisement on 06.02.2016 and 08.02.2016 so that if any
candidate was left out, his candidature could be considered – Thus,
the reasons for not appointing all the persons who were part of
list of 12,091 candidates were available on record from October
2016 onwards – At no stage any grievance was made till the matter
was disposed of in July 2017 which gave a status of permanency
– The grievance was made for the first time almost a year after
when these contempt petitions were filed – Nothing substantial
pointed out by any of candidates or contempt petitions –  Nothing
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1111
1111
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
wrong in the process undertaken by the State Government in
pursuance of various interim orders passed by the Supreme Court
– Therefore, Contempt petitions directed to be closed.
Closing the Contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The exercise of selecting those who had secured
minimum marks in terms of criteria devised by order dated
17.12.2014 also resulted in finding 12,091 persons eligible
subject to verification of antecedents, as was recorded in the
order dated 07.12.2015. [Para 11 (d)] [1128-B]
2. The list of these 12091 candidates was published and it
is a matter of record that the names of the contempt petitioners
were part of this list. [Para 11 (e)] [1128-C]
3. According to para 21 of the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016
(which has been referred to in the order dated 22.07.2019) out
of these 12091 candidates, only 391 candidates could be
appointed as the others either did not take part in the selection
process or had not opted for certain Districts or could not be
selected going by the cut-off for the concerned District.  This
development had happened way back in October 2016 and the
affidavit was on record since then. [Para 11 (f)] [1128-D]
4. The State thereafter published another advertisement
on 06.02.2016 so that if any candidate was left out, his
candidature could be considered. Steps were thereafter taken
and another advertisement was published on 08.02.2016. Para
25 of the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016 as quoted in the order dated
22.07.2019, dealt with this issue in clear terms and was thus part
of the record. [Para 11 (g)] [1128-E-F]
5. Aforesaid para 25 of the Affidavit thus made it clear that
as on the date when the affidavit was filed, 64,257 vacancies were
filled up and 1,536 appointment letters were being issued in
addition. It was also stated that 862 candidates were given ad-
hoc appointments in terms of the order dated 07.12.2015 and
were not included in the number of 64,257.  These three figures
aggregate to number 66,655. [Para 11 (h)] [1128-G-H]
6. Thus, the reasons for not appointing all the persons who
were part of list of 12,091 candidates were available on record
from October 2016 onwards. [Para 11 (i)] [1129-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1113
7. At no stage any grievance was made till the matter was
disposed of in July 2017 which gave the status of permanency
to those who were appointed under various interim orders
passed by this Court.  [Pa

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