Today, 3rd May, The Supreme Court criticized the Madhya Pradesh government for its “high-handed” approach and directed the immediate appointment of a woman. This action indicates that the court views the government’s actions as overly authoritative or unjust. The directive highlights the importance of respecting legal procedures and ensuring gender representation in appointments.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court criticized the Madhya Pradesh government and its officials for their unyielding and authoritarian attitude on Friday, mandating that a woman be appointed immediately to the role of “Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III” or a similar position within 60 days. The court highlighted that although the woman had passed the relevant examination in August 2008, she had not been formally appointed. Additionally, the court levied a “exemplary cost” of Rs 10 lakh against the state government, which must be compensated to the woman within the same timeframe.
The bench comprising of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta stated,
“This represents a stark instance where the obstinate, capricious, and maliciously motivated high-handedness of the state government and its officials has compelled the appellant into a protracted legal battle, clearly not of her volition.”
Read Also: Even Babasaheb Ambedkar himself couldn’t abolish Constitution: PM Criticizes Opposition
The bench remarked,
“Despite successfully clearing the selection exam conducted for the position of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III as early as August 31, 2008, the appellant, Smita Shrivastava, did not enjoy the benefits of her achievement.”
The court issued its verdict on the appeals made by Shrivastava against the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court from May and August 2022. The panel pointed out that despite recognizing the wrongful denial of her appointment as grossly illegal and arbitrary, the high court did not award her the appointment. The ruling mandated that the state government initiate an investigation and reclaim Rs 10 lakh from the officials responsible for the deliberate and wrongful actions that obstructed her relief.
The records show that she employed as an instructor at a non-formal educational centre established by the state in 1990, and she maintained this position until September 1, 1993. Later, the state chose to eliminate the instructor positions and introduced recruitment regulations under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules, 2005, for Samvida Shala Shikshak Grades I, II, and III.
The bench clarified that the woman had been permitted to participate in the examination for the selection of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. The court observed that the 2005 Rules modified on July 29, 2009, through the insertion of sub-rule(2) in rule 7A, establishing that candidates previously employed as instructors at non-formal educational centres qualified for appointment.
However, the court noted,
“This particular amendment rendered the appellant unqualified for the position of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, as her tenure as an instructor had ended on September 1, 1993. Consequently, the state government declined her appointment,”
The bench highlighted that despite a petition leading to the quashing of the July 29, 2009 notification and a subsequent direction to the state to reconsider her appointment based on the original criteria, the Indore district education officer denied her claim. This denial resulted in prolonged legal battles. The Supreme Court further observed that the case proceeded to a division bench of the high court, culminating in an order in May 2022.
The state government, however, misapplied an amended rule from July 29, 2009, which did not have retrospective application, to deny relief to the appellant.
The court observed that despite a previous ruling invalidating the regulation, a new notification was issued on March 21, 2018, retroactively applying changes from January 1, 2008, before the recruitment date. This act deemed by the bench as a deliberate attempt to disregard the high court’s decisions, aiming to deny the appellant and her colleagues their rightful claims to their positions. The bench strongly criticized this as an act of bad faith designed to sidestep the court’s judgments by any means necessary.
Read Also: Supreme Court Alerts on Social Media Comments in Pending Cases
In light of the ongoing injustice, the court concluded that the appellant was entitled to both restorative measures and compensation for the hardships caused by the arbitrary and overbearing behaviour of the state officials. Consequently, the bench mandated her immediate employment to the position of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III or a similar role within 60 days, with the appointment effective from the date the initial order supposed to be executed, following the selection process on August 31, 2008.
The court ruled that while the appellant is entitled to continue in her service, she will not receive any retroactive payment for wages lost during the period of litigation. This decision implies that although she can resume her duties and enjoy future earnings, she will not be compensated for income lost during the legal proceedings. It reflects a balance between reinstating her employment rights and addressing the financial implications of the legal dispute.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE