The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant relief, ruling that an appellant, though initially ineligible, cannot be penalized for the state authorities’ error in selecting and appointing him. The court reinstated the appellant with continuity of service but denied back wages, clarifying the decision was based on the case’s peculiar facts and would not set a precedent.
Facts Of The Case:
The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission advertised for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), reserving 25% of vacancies for teachers from Government Elementary Schools with five years of experience. The appellant, a teacher at a fully government-aided minority school, applied under this quota. His application was processed by the Commission, which found him suitable and recommended him for appointment. Furthermore, the District Education Establishment Committee, after a specific review, formally found him eligible and directed the issuance of an appointment letter, which he received and upon which he joined the post, consequently leaving his previous employment. Almost a year after his appointment, the respondent authorities terminated his services and issued a subsequent order for the recovery of the entire salary he had drawn during his service. The appellant challenged the termination and recovery orders before the High Court, which dismissed his petition, a decision upheld by a Division Bench. The core dispute revolved around whether his service in a 100% government-aided minority school qualified as service in a “Government Elementary School” for the purpose of the reserved quota.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the appellant filing a writ petition (W.P.(S) No. 897 of 2019) before the High Court of Jharkhand after his selection for the post of TGT was not acted upon. This petition was rendered infructuous and disposed of after the District Education Establishment Committee directed his appointment and he subsequently joined the post. Following the termination of his services and a recovery order, the appellant filed a subsequent writ petition (W.P.(S) No. 3391 of 2020) challenging these actions. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed this petition vide order dated 19th April 2023. The appellant then preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 398 of 2023) before the Division Bench of the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 14th May 2024. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 21752 of 2024), which, upon grant of leave, was converted into the present civil appeal.
READ ALSO:Buyer Protected: Supreme Court Validates Sale of HUF Property Made in Good Faith
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that while the appellant was strictly ineligible for the post as the 25% quota was reserved for teachers of Government Elementary Schools and not those from government-aided minority schools, he was a victim of a peculiar situation. The Court noted that the appellant’s application was not only accepted but he was also formally found eligible and selected by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and the District Education Establishment Committee, which directed his appointment. Acting on this official appointment, the appellant had left his previous job. The Court held that the appellant could not be penalized for the mistakes committed by the state authorities, who were responsible for the error in judgment and processing his candidacy.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the termination and recovery orders. The appellant was directed to be reinstated forthwith into service with continuity of service for all purposes, including terminal benefits. However, considering the initial ineligibility, the Court denied him the entitlement to back wages for the period he remained out of employment. The Court explicitly clarified that this relief was granted under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the appellant suffered due to the state’s errors, and that this judgment shall not be treated as a precedent.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1146 Appeal Number: (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21752 of 2024) Date of Judgement: September 16, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Download The Judgement Here