Holding

Appointments made in contravention of the statutory recruitment rules are void and confer no right, and no equitable relief is available to the appointees.

Summary

The appellants, appointed as Assistant Teachers in Assam primary schools, were hired without complying with the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. The State cancelled these appointments after issuing show‑cause notices, and the High Court upheld the cancellations. The appellants contended that they had served for several years, that the appointments were made under a special "Operation Black Board" project, and that equitable or humanitarian relief should be granted, relying on precedents such as Ashwani Kumar and Arun Kumar Rout. The Supreme Court held that the appointments violated statutory recruitment procedures, conferred no legal right, and were annulled within six months, rendering any claim for equitable relief untenable. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the appeals without costs.

Issues considered

Whether appointments made without following the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 are valid and confer any right on the appointees.
Whether the appellants are entitled to equitable or humanitarian relief despite the short duration of their appointments.
Whether the "Operation Black Board" project exempts the appointments from compliance with the statutory recruitment rules.
Whether the precedents cited (Ashwani Kumar, Arun Kumar Rout, H.C. Puttaswamy) are applicable to the present facts.

Subjects

appointmentrecruitment rulesvoid appointmentequitable reliefhumanitarian considerationstatutory complianceeducationprovincialisationOperation Black Boardadministrative law

Judgment

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:
c
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
any equitable relief-Since the appointments were terminated within a short
period there is no question ofsuch 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 assailed the
legality of the order of the learned Single Judge by filing writ appeal and the B
Division Bench having allowed the writ appeal and this Court against the said
order having granted special leave, the present appeal is before us. .

Civil Appeal Nos. 296/99, 279-285/99 and 286/99 are by some of the
teachers in the primary schools, who were appointed on 29.9.94 and their
services stood terminated by the order dated 20th December, 1994. They filed C
writ petitions in the Gauhati High Court, which was pending before the
learned Single Judge. When the Division Bench was in session on writ appeal
filed by the State, as stated earlier, the said Division Bench withdrew the writ
petitions filed by the appellants from the Single Judge and disposed them of,
by the common order which is being assailed in these appeals.
D
Civil Appeal Nos. 279-285/99 are also by some of the teachers, who
were appointed and whose services stood terminated and they had assailed
the order of termination by filing a writ petition before the learned Single
Judge, which was brought over by the Division Bench and disposed of, along
with the batch of other appeals.
E
Civil Appeal No. 287/99: In this appeal, the teachers before any order
of termination, apprehending termination had approached the High Court and
while the matter was pending before the learned Single Judge, the writ petition
stood transferred to the Division Bench and the Division Bench also disposed
of the same by the common order.
F
Civil Appeal Nos. 288-294/99: The facts in these appeals are similar to
the facts in Civil Appeal No. 27~/99 and in these appeals also, the order of
the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court is under challenge.

of
Civil Appeal No. 295/99: In this appeal against the order termination, G
the teachers had approached the High Court by filing a writ petition and the
learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 28th of April, 1994 in Civil Rule
No. 4280/91, dismissed the same. Against the said judgment of the learned
Single Judge, the teachers had carried appeal to the Division Bench and the
Division Bench by judgment dated 24th May, 1995, having dismissed the
appeal, the appellants are before this Court, special leave having been granted. H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000]SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

j\ In all these appeals, the appellants claimed to have-been appointed as
Assistant Teachers of different Primary Schools in the State of Assam. The
recruitment to the post of Primary Schools is. governed by a set of rules called
the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 (for short
'the Recruitment Rules') which had been framed by the Governor of Assam
in exercise of powers conferred by Section 27 of the Assam Elementary
B Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1974. The aforesaid Recruitment Rules
provide for method of recruitment, payment of liabilities of the Board and
management of Elementary Schools. Rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules provides
the method of recruitment. The said Rule 3 is extracted hereunder in extenso:

C "Rule 3.(i) Method of recruitment. In the month of January every year
the D.I. shall invite applications in prescribed form for vacancies of
elementary school teachers which are likely to occur in the year in his
establishment.

(ii) Age. (a) A candidate shall be within the age limit on 1st January
D of the year of recruitment as prescribed by Government.

(b) The Upper age limit shall be relaxed in favour of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes as per Rules made by Government.

(iii) Qualification. (a) Matriculation /High School /School Leaving
Certificate Examination or any other examination of equivalent standard
E
shall be the minimum qualification for the post of teacher in Lower
Primary and Junior Basic Schools preference being given to candidates
trained in Senior Basic, Normal and Junior Basic Training Courses.

(b) For M.V. and Senior Basic Schools qualification shall be Matric,
F Normal or P.U. or Intermediate or its equivalent.

(iv) Character. A candidate shall furnish the certificates of character
from (a) the Principal, Academic Officer of the School/College last
attended by the candidate and (b) a respectable person who is well
acquainted with (not relaled to) the candidate.
G (v) Selection Committee. There shall be a Selection Committee in each
educational sub-Division to be constituted by the Sub-Divisional
Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education. The Chairman of the
Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board for Elementary Education and
the D.I. of Schools shall be the Chairman and Secretary of the Selection
H Committee respectively.
NAZIRA BEGUM LASHKAR v. STATE [PATTANAIK, J.] 425

(vi) On receipt ofapplications, the Selection Committee shall scrutinise A
the mark sheets and other necessary testimonials of the candidates
and prepare a list of candidates for interview by the Selection
Committee.

The Selection Committee shall then finalise the list of successful
candidates in order of merit after interview and shall put up the list B
before the Board for approval. While approving the list, the Board
shall be guided by the declared policies of the Government and
instructions issued by the Government from time to time. After approval
of the list by the Board the same shall be sent to the Director of
Elementary Education for his final approval.
c
The Deputy Inspector of Schools will appoint the selected
candidates in order of merit from the list approved by the Director of
Elementary Education as and when required as per Government Rules
and Government instructions for the time being in force.

The list shall be valid for one year unless its validity is extended D
by Government.
(vii) Reservation. There shall be reservation of posts for Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes as per Rules made by Government from
time to time.

(viii) Physical fitness. (a) A candidate shall be of sound health both E
physically and mentally and free from organic defects or bodily infirmity
likely to interfere with his/her duties.

(b) A candidate shall be required to undergo medical examination and
to produce a medical certificate of fitness.
F
(ix) An appointed candidate may be required to undergo such in-
service training as Government may decide from time to time."

In view of the allegations that large scale irregular appointments had
been made by some officers of the Government, without following the
prescribed procedure, the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court, while the G
writ appeals as well as the writ petitions brought over by the Division Bench
from the Single Judge of the said High Court were pending, a direction had
been issued by the High Court for holding an inquiry and submitting a report
in view of the alleged gross mat-practices adopted in different Districts.

After inquiring into the manner in which these appointments had been H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A made, the Inquiry Committee had submitted a report that the appointment of
these teachers had not been made in accordance with the statutory rules and
without any advertisement calling for applications and without any constitution
of the Selection Committee and without any interview, appointments had been
made as against the allotted posts under the orders ~f the then Chie_f Minister
and communicated by the then Director of Elementary Education and/or the
B Secretary in the Education Department. The Division Bench of the Gauhati
High Court came to the conclusion that the initial appointment of these
teachers itself was not only in contravention of the statutory rules, but
against all canons of fairness and the appointment letters were cancelled after
giving show cause notice, rules of natural justice having sufficiently complied
C with, and in such circumstances, the initial appointment being dubious in
nature, the issuance of appointment letters will not confer any right on the
appointees. Since the Division Bench was hearing matters relating to
appointment of Primary Teachers in different Districts, it came to hold that the
corrupt practices were not confined to a particular District of the State but
spread over the length and breadth of the State right through Cachar, Jorhat,
D Darrang etc. and the large number of back- door entries of teachers were made
and appointed de hors the Rules. Ultimately, therefore the Division Bench in
the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that:

" ........... the appointments conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit
E cannot be regularised or validated. There was no selection, no interview,
or fake or ghost interviews, tampering with records and fabricating
documents. In such circumstances as pointed out by the Supreme
Court in Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR (1994) SC 2166, an
inference can be drawn that all was motivated by extraneous
considerations. The entire process of making appointmen!s is stinking.
F. Really speaking, the moment posts were allotted to a particular District,
it was free play for all and the net result is these appointments. All
norms of procedural fairness had been thrown to winds, the rules were
given a convenient go-bye. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
violated with impunity. These petitions are, therefore, liable to be
dismissed and accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."
G
The appeals filed by the State, therefore, were allowed and in the cases where
the writ petitions had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the
appeals had been preferred by the teachers, those appeals stood dismissed.
The State Government was directed to streamline the process of selection at
H its earliest and while making such selection, it was also further directed that
NAZIRA BEGUM LASHKAR v_ STATE [PATTANAIK, J.] 427

these teachers would get an opportunity to offer themselves as candidates, A
subject to their fulfilment of conditions of eligibility and if necessary, the age
should be relaxed, as permissible under the Rules .
....
Mr. Sanjay Parikh, the learned counsel, appearing for the appellants in
Civil Appeal No. 278/99, vehemently contended before us that the poor
teachers should not be penalised, since they had been appointed against B
I -
available vacant posts by a competent authority and since they do possess
the requisite qualification for being appointed. He also vehemently contended
that the order in favour of these teachers by the learned Single Judge having
been assailed by the State, after long delay of eleven months and objection
for condonation having been filed, the Division Bench was not justified while C
interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge and on that ground
alone, the order of the Division Bench is liable to be interfered with by this
Court. He also further submitted that in view of the fact that these teachers
have been continuing for a considerable number of years, this Court should
direct for adjustment of equities in a manner as was done by this Court in
Ashwani Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1997] 2 SCC Page 1, D
so that while considering these teachers for the posts pursuant to the directions
of the Division Bench of the High Court, due weightage should be given for
the experience gained by these teachers who had been teaching for a number
of years. In support of this contention, Mr. Parikh also relied upon a decision
of this Court in Arun Kumar Rout and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1998] E
9 SCC 71, wherein this Court had indicated that the appointees deserve
sympathetic consideration in getting appointment against sanctioned posts
on humanitarian consideration. The learned counsel also placed reliance on
the judgment of this Court in H.C. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. The Hon'ble Chief
Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and Ors., (1991] Supp. 2 SCC
421, where-under this Court reviewed the earlier orders of the Court and F
treated the services of the appointees to be regularly appointed.

Mr. Sudhir Chandra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants in C.A. No. 296/99, C.A. No. 279-285/99 and C.A. No. 286/99, on
the other hand contended that the teachers involved in these appeals had G
applied for, pursuant to an advertisement in Newspaper "Dainik Azone" and
in fact 5474 teachers had been appointed under a special project called
'Operation Black Board' and for such appointments, the provisions of the
Recruitment Rules have no application. According to him, a large scale
appointments having been made and such appointments having been made
after entertaining applications, pursuant to an advertisement and after H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A considering the appointees suitable by an authority, their appointments could
not have been tenninated and the Division Bench was in error in disposing
of the writ petitions filed by them without adverting to the special features
of the case, as narrated. According to Mr. Sudhir Chandra, so far as the
appointees in these appeals are concerned, there has neither been any back
door entry nor has there been any favouritism shown by the authorities, and
B therefore, their appointments could not have been cancelled and /or terminated
within three months of the appointment.

Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the
appellants in C.A.No. 287/99 also contended that the teachers involved in the
C said appeal h~d approached the High Court, apprehending their termination
and, therefor:e, their writ petitions could not have been disposed of by the
Division Bench by bringing forth their case, without adverting to the grounds
on which the teachers approached the High Court, apprehending termination
and he, therefore, submitted that the matter should be remitted back to the
learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court.
D
Ms. lndu Malhotra, appearing for the appellants in C.A. No. 295/99 on
the other hand contended that so far as the recruitment of the appellants in
this appeal is concerned, there was due advertisement and there was due
selection and appointments had been made by the Elementary Advisory
E Board and as such there was substantial compliance of the provisions of the
Recruitment Rules and consequently, the appointments involved in the said
appeal could not have been annuled by the Division Bench.

In view of different submissions made by different set of counsel, as
referred to earlier, we have examined in detail the report of the Inquiry Committee
F as well as different orders passed by the High Court and it appears to us that .....
no special case had been made out by the appellants in C.A. No. 296/99, C.A.
Nos. 279-285/99 and C.A. No. 286/99 in their writ petitions before the High
Court, making out a case that these appointments had been made under a
special project called "Operation Black Board" and as such, the provisions
G of the Recruitment Rules need not be complied with and the appointments
had been bona fide made by the competent authority and the appointees
possess the requisite qualification. Even in the special leave petition in this
Court, no such stand has been taken. In this view of the matter, we are
constrained to agree with the conclusions of the Division Bench of the High
Court that the appointments were made to posts of Assistant Teachers of
H Primary Schools and such appointments are governed by the statutory
NAZIRA BEGUM LASHKAR v. STATE [PATTANAIK, J.) 429
Recruitment Rules, which rules have been framed by the Governor in exercise A
of the power conferred under the Assam Elementary Education
(Provincialisation) Act, 1974. We also do not find any substance in the

- argument of Ms. Indu Malhotra that the appointments made in C.A. No.
295/99 were in substantial compliance of the Recruitment Rules inasmuch as
the judgment of the Division Bench clearly indicates that the counsel appearing B
for the teachers conceded that the appointments had been made on the
vacant posts but the same were not done in accordance with the provisions
of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1977. In view of the aforesaid concession of the
appellants through their counsel before the Division Bench, it would be
difficult for us to entertain the contention of Ms. Indu Malhotra that there
has been substantial compliance of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. C
As has been stated earlier, while the matter was pending before the Division
Bench, the Court was persuaded to appoint an Inquiry Committee, in view of
the allegations of gross irregularities and illegalities committed in the matter
of appointment of teachers in different primary schools in different Districts.
The said Committee has gone into details and recorded findings that the
provisions of the Recruitment Rules have not at all been followed. The High D
Court even has gone to the extent of recording a finding that there has been
no selection, no interview or even fake or ghost interviews and there has been
tampering of records and fabricating of documents. 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 other hand appointments E
have been made indiscriminately, immediately after 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
annuled hardly after six months from the date of appointments and the
appointees cannot claim to be continuing for an unusual long period, so as F
to claim a humanitarian consideration in their case. The decisions cited by Mr.
Parikh, in support of his contention, not only do not support his contention
but on the other hand, appears to us to be against his contention. In Ashwani
Kumar's case, [ 1997] 2 S.C.C. I, this Court in no uncertain terms held that as
the appointments had been made illegally and contrary to all recognised G
recruitment procedures and were highly arbitrary, the same were not binding
on the State of Bihar. This Court further went on to hold in the aforesaid case
that the initial appointments having been made contrary to the statutory rules,
the continuance of such appointees must be held to be tc.tally unauthorised
and no right would accrue to the incumbent on that score. The Court had also
held that it cannot be said that principles of natural justice were violated or H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A full opportunity was not given to the employees concerned to have their say
in the matter before their appointments were recalled and terminated. But,
whil~ dismissing the appeals, the Court had issued certain directions as to

B
how the appointments should be made in future and how the case of the
Hlegally recruited teachers should be dealt with. In the facts and circumstances
of the _present case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to give any such
direction, other than the directions given by the Division Bench of the High
-
Court regarding condonation Qf over age inasmuch as none of the appointees
have been allowed to continue for any long period beyond six months and
wherever they have been allowed to continue, it is because of the judgment
of the learned Single Judge. In 1his view of the matter, question of issuing
C any direction for adjustment of equities in favour of the appellants would not
arise. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage that even though,
the appointments made in favour of the appointees indicated clearly that the
appointment is. purely temporary and can be terminated without any notice
but before cancellation of the appointments, the Government did issue notice
to the appointees and it is only after that, the termination orders had been ,_
D iss.ued. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any merit in any of these
appeals and· the appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed, but in the
circumstances there will ~e no order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.