Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

2025 INSC 1146 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21752 of 2024)

RAJESH KUMAR ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. …. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R.GAVAI, CJI.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated

14th May, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letters Patent Appeal No.

398 of 2023 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present

appellant. By the said judgment, the Division Bench of the

High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 19th April,

2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in

Signature Not Verified W.P.(S) No. 3391 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.09.24 14:36:46 IST Reason: had dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant.

1

3. This appeal arises out of peculiar facts and

circumstances.

4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission issued an

advertisement thereby inviting applications for appointment

to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Government

Secondary Schools in the State of Jharkhand. As per the said

advertisement, 25 per cent of the posts were reserved for the

teachers of Government Primary Schools of Jharkhand having

experience of minimum five years.

5. At the relevant time, the appellant was working in a

minority school, which was fully (100 per cent) Government-

aided.

6. Presuming himself to be eligible for appointment to the

post of TGT under the aforesaid 25 per cent quota, the

appellant submitted his application pursuant to the said

advertisement.

7. It is not in dispute that the appellant was serving in St.

Teresa Girls Middle School, Dudhani, Dumka, since 2nd April,

2008 and his appointment was confirmed by the Director,

Primary Education vide Memo No. 1148 dated 27th May,

2 2009.

8. The appellant, while submitting the application, had

also obtained ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Office of the

District Superintendent of Education, Dumka.

9. In the selection process, the appellant was found to be

successful and his name was also recommended for

appointment to the said post. However, since the appointment

letter was not issued, the appellant preferred a writ petition

before the High Court of Jharkhand being W.P.(S) No. 897 of

2019.

10. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the

appellant’s case was considered by the District Education

Establishment Committee, Dumka in its meeting dated 19th

October, 2019. The District Education Establishment

Committee found the appellant to be eligible and directed

appointment letter to be issued to the appellant. Therefore, an

appointment letter was issued to the appellant on 24th

October, 2019. In pursuance to which, the appellant had

joined the post of TGT on 26th October, 2019.

11. Since the appellant was appointed, the W.P.(S) No. 897

of 2019 filed by the appellant had been rendered infructuous

3 and as such, the same was disposed of.

12. However, the appellant’s services came to be terminated

after almost a year vide Office Order dated 7th September,

2020. Thereafter, on 12th September, 2020 vide another Office

Order the salary drawn by the appellant during the entirety of

his service was sought to be recovered.

13. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the High

Court by way of a W.P.(S) No. 3391 of 2020 and the said writ

petition came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated

19th April, 2023.

14. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal, which too

came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High

Court, by the impugned judgment and order.

15. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been

filed.

16. Heard Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sudhir Bisla, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

17. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant submitted that the appellant was working in

a 100 per cent Government-Aided Minority School and as

4 such was very much eligible for the 25 per cent quota for the

teachers working in Government Elementary Schools. He

submitted that it is not in dispute that the appellant

possessed the requisite experience and qualification.

18. Mr. Sudhir Bisla, learned counsel for the respondent

has vehemently opposed the appeal. He submitted that the

aforesaid quota was reserved only for the teachers working in

the Government Elementary Schools. He submitted that the

Government Aided Minority School cannot be equated with

the Government Elementary Schools.

19. He, therefore, submitted that no interference would be

warranted with the concurrent orders of the learned Single

Judge of the High Court and the learned Division Bench of

the High Court.

20. We find substance in the stand taken by the

respondent-State.

21. Perusal of the advertisement would clearly reveal that

25 per cent quota was reserved for the teachers working in

the Government Elementary Schools having the experience of

five years.

5

22. As such, strictly speaking, the appellant was not

eligible to be considered for the said post. However, in the

present case, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has

not only found the appellant eligible but also the District

Education Establishment Committee, after finding him

eligible for the said post in its meeting dated 19th October,

2019, directed to issue the appointment letter to the

appellant. As such, an appointment letter was issued to the

appellant on 24th October, 2019.

23. It is only after a year that the appellant’s appointment

was cancelled and an order of recovery was issued against

him.

24. We find that the appellant has been caught in a

peculiar situation. Acting on the order dated 24th October,

2019, he has left his earlier job and now has also been

terminated from service in the Government Secondary School.

25. The appellant cannot be penalized for the mistakes

committed by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission or

the District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka.

26. Though, the appellant was not eligible for the said post,

the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission accepted his

6 application as being in order and, upon finding him suitable,

selected him for appointment. Not only did the Jharkahnd

Staff Selection Commission consider him fit for the post but

the Office of the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka

issued a ‘No Objection Certificate’.

27. Furthermore, the District Education Establishment

Committee, Dumka in its meeting held on 19th October, 2019

also found him eligible and as such directed the issuance of

an appointment letter to the appellant.

28. In that view of the matter and in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case, we are inclined to allow the

present appeal. The Office Order dated 7th September, 2020

directing the cancellation of appointment of the appellant and

Office Order dated 12th September, 2020 directing recovery of

the salary are quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly.

29. The appellant shall be reinstated in the Government

School forthwith.

30. Though we direct the appellant be reinstated forthwith

with continuity in service for all purposes, including terminal

benefits, the appellant shall not be entitled to back wages for

the period during which he remained out of employment.

7

31. Needless to state this order shall be complied with on

or prior 1st October, 2025.

32. We further clarify that we are passing the aforesaid

order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present

case and it shall not be treated as precedent in any other

matter.

33. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

…….........................CJI (B.R. GAVAI)

………..........................J (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

New Delhi September 16, 2025

8