It appears, at times that the treasury of various State Government is filled to the brim! One is not surprised at the inclination of various State Governments to spend common man’s money on fruitless litigation. The Supreme Court of our country has, time and again denounced the practice adopted various State Government of filing appeals as a matter of course. In the case of State of Uttarkhand & Ors v. Kanhya Lal [2014] INSC 244 (29 April 2014), the Supreme Court reprimanded the State Government of Uttarkhand in pursuing a frivolous litigation.
What are the facts of this case?
In this case, a teacher named Kanhya Lal applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade in the government school in the State of Uttarkhand. In this regard, the State Government had issued an advertisement seeking applications for this post. Further, the first advertisement clearly indicated the last date for submission of Application to be 21st November, 1997, which was advanced and preponed to 10th November, 1997 in terms of a correction issued on 24th October, 1997. The only infirmity in the Application of Mr. Kanhyalal was that he had failed to include his Marksheet along with his Application Form, which was submitted by him on 4.11.1997. He had made full compliance by personally filing his Marksheet on 12.11.1997. The State Government, instead of keeping in perspective the fact that a corrigendum has been issued preponing the last date of submission of Forms from 21.11.1997 to 10.11.1997, and instead of being fair and flexible, rejected the application of Mr. Kanhyalal and instead selected another applicant whose quality points were much lower in comparison to Mr. Kanhyalal.
What action did Mr. Kanhyalal take to fight this injustice?
Mr Kanhyalal was rightly disturbed by the situation that the last appointed candidate had 55.6 quality points whereas he possessed much higher merit, i.e. 58.4 quality points. He therefore filed a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarkhand at Nanital.
How did the case proceed?
The Single Judge of the Uttarkhand High Court upheld the petition of Mr. Kanhyalal. After going into the factual matrix of the case, the learned Single Judge had directed by Order dated 10.3.2008 that the case of Mr. Kanhyalal should be considered within three months for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Language) L.T. Grade, if there is no other impediment in his selection . The State Government filed an appeal against the decision of the Single Judge. However, the order of the Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Uttarkhand High Court. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench of the Uttarkhand High Court, the State Government filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
HOW DID THE MATTER PROCEED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT?
WHAT WERE THE SPECIAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT?
THE SUPREME COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION WHICH IS WORTH TAKING A NOTE OF:
“IN THIS CASE, THE WRIT PETITIONER IS A TEACHER AND IT IS UNFAIR TO HIM TO BE REPEATEDLY DRAWN INTO FIGHTING FUTILE, IF NOT FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION BY THE STATE. IT HAS BECOME THE PRACTICE OF THE STATE TO CARRY ON FILING APPEALS EVEN WHERE THE CASE DOES NOT DESERVE IT, KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WILL BE PHYSICALLY FATIGUED AND ECONOMICALLY EMASCULATED IN PURSUING PROTRACTED LITIGATION”.
WHAT WAS THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT?
THE SUPREME COURT DIRECTED THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF UTTARKHAND TO APPOINT MR. KNAHYALAL THE POST OF ASSISTANT TEACHER (LANGUAGE) L.T. GRADE, I.E. THE ADVERTISED POST, TREATING HIM TO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED ALONG WITH THE OTHER CANDIDATES WHO WERE SELECTED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBJECT ADVERTISEMENT FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT TEACHER (LANGUAGE) L.T. GRADE. THE SUPREME COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE SENIORITY OF MR. KANHYALAL SHALL BE FIXED SUCH THAT IT IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE SERVICES ALREADY RENDERED BY HIM.
Recent Comments