Teacher Appointment Dispute Resolved in Favor of Appellant

The Supreme Court of India recently adjudicated a long-standing dispute involving the appointment of a Science Teacher in a school in Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, Suresh Mani, had been fighting for the approval of his appointment as a Science Teacher since 1986. The case, which had been entangled in administrative technicalities, was finally resolved by the apex court, granting relief to the appellant.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Suresh Mani, was a teacher seeking recognition as a Science Teacher under the Respondent No. 5 – School. The dispute centered around the approval of his appointment, which had been pending for over three decades. The main contention was that while the subject of Science had been sanctioned in the school, there was no official sanction for the post of Science Teacher. This administrative oversight led to prolonged litigation.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, through his legal counsel, argued that the absence of an official sanction for the post of Science Teacher contradicted the very purpose of sanctioning the subject. It was contended that a subject’s inclusion in the curriculum necessitated the appointment of a teacher to teach it. Furthermore, the petitioner pointed out that he had been considered for selection grade in 2003, as evidenced by a communication dated September 25, 2003, from the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria.

Respondent’s Arguments

The state, represented by the Additional Advocate General, countered the petitioner’s claims by asserting that the statutory requirement for a sanctioned post had not been met. It was argued that, despite the presence of the Science subject in the school’s curriculum, no post had been officially sanctioned for a Science Teacher. The respondents maintained that the appointment could not be regularized without meeting this statutory prerequisite.

Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts of the case, found merit in the petitioner’s claims. The Court observed:

“We fail to understand that having sanctioned the subject in a school, how can the Department deny the sanction of a post of teacher? The very purpose of sanctioning a subject is to have said subject taught in the school, for which a teacher is obviously required.”

The Court further noted that the petitioner had been considered for selection grade in 2003, which implied an acknowledgment of his position. Given this peculiar situation, the Court ruled that the petitioner should be deemed to have been appointed as a regular Science Teacher.

Key Observations by the Judges

• The absence of a sanctioned post contradicted the fundamental logic of approving a subject in a school.
• The petitioner’s consideration for selection grade in 2003 weakened the respondent’s argument against his appointment.
• The Court emphasized that its decision was based on the specific facts of this case and should not be treated as a precedent.

Conclusion and Implications

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, directing that he be deemed a duly appointed teacher for all purposes. The respondents were instructed to disburse all consequential benefits within three months of the judgment.

This judgment highlights the importance of logical administrative decision-making and the necessity of aligning policy decisions with practical requirements. It underscores the principle that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice, especially in cases where an individual’s livelihood is at stake.

Petitioner Name: Suresh Mani.
Respondent Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 26-11-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Suresh Mani vs The State of Uttar P Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-11-2018.pdf