Authorities Cannot Deny Salary Citing Absence Of Their Nominee From Selection Committee: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the failure of the District Basic Education Officer to send his nominee to a selection committee under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984 does not vitiate the selection held in his absence. It held that salary cannot be withheld from the candidate so selected on that ground alone.
Rule 15(5)(ii) of the Rules of 1984 provides for a nominee or representative of the District Basic Education Officer in the selection proceeding. Rule 15(5) also deems approval granted where the officer communicates no decision on the selection papers within a month.
Justice Irshad Ali held,
“…. it is apparent on the face of it as per Rule 15(5)(ii) of Rules of 1984, merely non presence of nominee / representative of the DBEO does not vitiate the selection proceeding conducted in absence of the nominee. Similar proposition of law has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that in absence of nominee to be present the selection proceeding does not vitiate in law and in case by majority of members of the selection committee decision has been taken, it is valid one and no payment of salary can be estopped on this ground alone.”
A Class-IV vacancy in a recognised and aided junior high school was intimated to the officer in July 2013. The interview fixed for August 2013 was put off because no nominee was sent despite requests. The committee met in September 2013 and placed the petitioner first. The papers went up for approval on 12th September 2013, no decision followed, and the petitioner joined as Peon on 18th October 2013. No salary was released despite four representations by the management.
Approaching the High Court for payment of salary, the petitioner argued that the authorities could not stall the recruitment by their own inaction and then question it.
Counsel for the authorities submitted that a selection held without the officer's nominee stood vitiated in law, and the withholding of salary warranted no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court relied on the decision of the High Court in State of U.P. v. Praveen Kumar Mishra and State of U.P. v. Gunjan Singh, in which, on similar facts, the absence of the officer's nominee was held not to render the selection illegal.
Allowing the petition, the Court issued mandamus for payment of current salary month by month, directed that the petitioner be permitted to work as Peon, and ordered release of arrears from 18.10.2013 with interest at 8% within two months of production of a certified copy of the order.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Basic Education U.P.Civil Sectt.And Ors.