INDIA LITERACY BOARD AND ORS. v. VEENA CHATURVEDI AND ORS

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 200

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ASHOK BHAN, AR. LAKSHMANAN

Case summary

INDIA LITERACY BOARD AND ORS. v. VEENA CHATURVEDI AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

INDIA LITERACY BOARD AND ORS. v. VEENA CHATURVEDI AND ORS. FEBRUARY 21, 2005 [ASHOK BHAN AND DR. ·AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ. ] Constitution of India-Article 226 : Writ of Mandamus-Issuance of-Held : Mandamus cannot be issued for continuing the appointee in service after expiry ofcontractual period Writ Petition-Reliefnot prayedfor, granted by High Court before final disposal-Propriety of-Held: Not properfor High Court to award reliefnot prayed for, even before the disposal of the main case. Respondents were appointed as teachers by the Appellant-Society on contractual basis for a fixed period. After expiry of the contractual period, Appellant issued an advertisement for fresh recruitment of teachers. Respondents were eligible to apply again.

However, instead of applying they preferred writ petition for quashing the advertisement and seeking ) Division Bench ·made by the appellant as if they are not required to pay the salary after one month is not correct and the appellants are duty bound to pay the salaries to the respondents as directed by the learned Single Judge; INDIA LITERACY BOARD 11. VEENA CHATURVEDI [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 207 5. The respondents who have rendered long continuous service as (\ assistant teachers under the appellant are aggrieved against the · intennittent breaks created in their services by issuing time-bound appointment orders from time to time and by the action of the appellant in proceeding to issue advertisement for selection against the posts held by the respondents in such a manner as to completely oust the respondents from the field of eligibility and also against the non-payment of salary as admissible to the .. teachers; 6.

The appellant-Society was established with an object offurthering the cause ofadult literacy and for other different laudable purposes enshrined under the Constitution of India. The constitution and . C composition of the appellant-Board is such as to have the pervading control of the Government of India in collaboration with the State Government. The funds for running and maintaining the appellant-Board are released by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the respondents in the High Court is maintainable in law. Concluding her arguments, learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant cannot legally be permitted to proceed with the impugned action pursuant to the impugned advertisement against the posts held by the respondents nor can the appellant discontinue or dis-engage the respondents from service. By issuing .

periodical appointment orders under the conditions of payment of consolidated monthly amount, the respondents had been subjected to an unfair treatment and to exploitation of labour which is specifically forbidden under the constitutional scheme. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsel appearing on the either side. We have also perused the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and of the orders passed by the Division Bench. A perusal of the order passed by the High Court would clearly show that the High Court as an interim measure directed issue of appointment order which was not even the main relief claimed in the writ petition. The question is whether the reliefs which are not prayed for or which are not claimed in the petition could have been awarded by the High Court even before the disposal of the main case. Another question would also arise as H.

to whether the writ petition is maintainable against the appellant-Board which according to the appellant is neither an instrumentality of the State nor a State within the meaning of Article 12 ofth_e Constitution of India. A further question would also arise as to whether the appellant is under an obligation to-select the respondents as teachers when the contract entered into by them ceased on 30. 06. 200l. . Leave to appeal was sought for by the appellant on the above grounds, among others. It has been consistently held by this Court in various cases that in a case of contractual appointment for a fixed term, no mandamus can be issued for continuing them in service but in the present case as an interim measure a direction has been given by the High Court to issue appointment orders which was not even the main relief claimed in the' writ petition. Though we have extracted several legal contentions urged by the .

counsel appearing on either side in this appeal, we refrain ourselves from expressing any view on the merits . of the rival contentions which is premature. Any observation of ours in the present appeal will ultimately prejudice the case of the parties bef9re the High Court in the pending writ petition. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that one month· salary as directed by the High Court has already been paid ~o the respondents in compliance of the order. Though a specific direction was given by the Division Bench by its order dated l0. 08. 200 l to pay salary for one more month in pursuance of the interim order the said order had been wrongly interpreted by another Division'. Bench of the High Court. The order ·passed in the special appeal by the Division Bench also observed that the question raised by the parties in the writ petition is an arguable one. It is an admitted case that as on today the respondents are not working in the school.

When they are not in fact working in the school, they are not entitled to ariy salary by applying the rule of no work, no pay. It is not in disput~ that the Management has issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates. The respondents have in fact not applied for the post in question in response to the advertisement chose to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction ofthe High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, the questions raised in the writ petition. is an arguable one. The affidavit. sand counter affidavits have already been exchanged and, therefore, in the interest of justice a direction should be issued to the High Court to hear the writ petition which is ripe for hearing. As already stated, we have desisted ourselves from expressing any view on the merits of the rival claims. Interest ofjustice would be amply met if a direction is issued to the learned Single Judge of the High Court with a INDIA LITERACY BOARD v.

VEENACHATURVEDI [LAKSHMANAN, J. ] 209 request to take up the main writ petition itself for final hearing and dispose of the same on merits including the maintainability of the writ petition. We direct the Registrar General of the High Court, Allahabad at Lucknow to immediately place the matter before a learned Single Judge of the High Court after obtaining appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice for posting the said case before the concerned single Judge for final disposal. Both the learned counsel appearing before us have assurd tLat they will extend their cooperation in disposing of the writ petition finally. We request the learned single Judge before whom the writ petition is posted to take up this matter on priority basis and. dispose of the same in accordance with law within one month from the date of posting of the said case in his Court. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. D. G. Appeal disposed of.