Summary
A lower-ranked teacher appointed because a higher-ranked candidate did not receive a correctly addressed appointment letter had to yield to the binding tribunal order securing that candidate’s appointment. Although notice should have preceded termination, its omission was not fatal on these facts. The Court set aside reinstatement and fresh-appointment relief, but made its judgment conditional on the State paying Rs. 50,000 costs for condonation of its delayed appeal.
Issues
- Whether the lower-ranked appointee could be displaced to implement a final tribunal order favouring the higher-ranked candidate.
- Whether omission of a show-cause notice required reinstatement or appointment against another vacancy.
- What consequence followed non-payment of costs imposed for condoning the State’s delay.
Held
- The earlier tribunal order was binding on the department and corrected denial of appointment to the higher-ranked candidate through a wrongly addressed letter. Its correctness could not be reopened in this appeal; absence from those proceedings did not by itself prevent implementation of an order made with jurisdiction. (¶ 13-15)
- Separate merit lists governed the recruitment. With only 16 SEBC (Women) vacancies, the respondent ranked 22nd obtained appointment only because the 16th-ranked candidate had not joined. Lower marks of persons appointed in other categories did not establish that they should instead be displaced. (¶ 15-18)
- Natural justice remained applicable: notice should have invited an explanation why she was the person to be displaced. However, termination was non-stigmatic, no disciplinary inquiry was necessary, and the binding order and established selection facts made the omission non-fatal in this case. Nearly two decades later it did not justify appointment against another vacancy. (¶ 20-23)
- The direction to create a supernumerary post was correctly set aside and there was no basis to direct appointment against an available vacancy. The claim to back wages was also untenable; wrongful-termination precedents did not govern this necessary implementation of the tribunal order. (¶ 23-25)
- Condonation of 247 days’ delay required deposit of Rs. 50,000 in the Registry within four weeks for the first respondent. Non-payment would dismiss condonation, revoke leave, recall this judgment and leave the impugned judgment standing. (¶¶ 1, 26)
Result
Appeal allowed and the impugned High Court direction and tribunal relief set aside, subject to the State depositing Rs. 50,000 within four weeks as the condition for condonation of delay; no costs in the appeal itself.