Sanjai Kumar Vs Dr. Prabhat Kumar

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1332-1360/2018

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

SANJAI KUMAR & ORS. …Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

DR. PRABHAT KUMAR ETC. …Respondent(s)/

Contemnors

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1391-1419/2018

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1673-1701/2018

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1935-1963/2018

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1964-1992/2018

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

2

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1993-2021/2018

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.2022-2050/2018

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.2051-2079/2018

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.2127-2155/2018

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.20-48/2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.323-351/2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.741/2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9732 OF 2017

WITH

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

3

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.704-732/2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.776-790/2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4347-4375 OF 2014

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. These Contempt Petitions inter alia seek enforcement of interim

orders dated 17.12.2014, 25.2.2015 and 7.12.2015 and the judgment and

final order dated 25.7.20171 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4347-

4375 of 2014 and other connected matters.

2. The facts leading to the filling of aforesaid Civil Appeals were set

out in the judgment and final order dated 25.07.2017 as under: -

“4. In the wake of Eighty-Sixth Amendment to

the Constitution of India inserting Article 21A for

providing free and compulsory education to children of

age of 6 to 14 years, the RTE Act was enacted. The

RTE Act inter alia lays down qualifications for

appointment and terms and conditions of service of

teachers. The Central Government in exercise of its

powers under Section 23 of the Act, issued Notification

1 (2018) 12 SCC 595

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

4

dated 31st March, 2010 authorising the NCTE as the

“academic authority” to lay down the minimum

qualifications for a person to be eligible for

appointment as a teacher. The NCTE thereafter issued

Notification dated 23rd August, 2010 laying down

qualifications for appointment of teachers for

elementary education. The NCTE also issued

guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 for conduct of

Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) and also providing for

weightage to the marks in the said test for recruitment

of teachers. The 1981 Rules of the State were amended

on 9th November, 2011 (the 12th Amendment) to bring

the same in consonance with the Notifications dated

23rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011.

Accordingly, the TET was held on 13th November,

2011 and result thereof was declared on 25th

November, 2011. Thereafter on 30th November, 2011,

an advertisement was issued for appointment of

‘trainee teachers’ in primary schools. The candidates

submitted their applications. However, the said

advertisement was cancelled and a fresh advertisement

dated 7th December, 2012 was issued which came to

be challenged and has been set aside by the impugned

judgment. The justification given by the State of Uttar

Pradesh for such cancellation is that the result of TET

was influenced by the money consideration. On 31st

December, 2011 the amount of several lacs was seized

with lists of candidates. FIR No. 675 of 2011 was

lodged. Residence of Director of Secondary Education

was also searched leading to recovery of certain lists

and cash. The State constituted a high powered

committee headed by the Chief Secretary on 10th April,

2012 which gave its report dated 1st May, 2012. It was

recommended that candidates found involved in any

irregularity/criminal activity in the TET examination

be prohibited from the selection. The State

Government took a decision dated 26th July, 2012

which was followed by 15th Amendment to the 1981

rules on 31st August, 2012 to the effect that instead of

giving weightage to the TET marks as per 12th

Amendment, the criteria of ‘quality point marks’ as

prevalent prior to 12th Amendment was adopted. This

amendment was challenged on the ground that it

rendered the rules inconsistent with the NCTE

guidelines referred to above.

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

5

5. Writ petitions were filed by the affected candidates

against the cancellation of advertisement dated 30th

November, 2011 and the new advertisement dated 7th

December, 2012 incorporating the criteria by way of

15th Amendment to the Rules which was at variance

with the guidelines of the NCTE dated 11th February,

2011, supra to the extent that weightage for marks in

TET was not contemplated.

6. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ

petitions vide order dated 16th January, 20132. Appeal

against the said judgment has been allowed by the Division

Bench by the impugned order. The Division Bench inter

alia followed the judgment dated 31st May, 2013 by three

Judges (Full Bench) in Shiv Kumar Sharma and Ors. v.

State of U.P. and ors.3 The High Court held that the

decision dated 26th July, 2012 of the State Government to

change the criteria of selection by way of 15th Amendment

in the Rules to make TET as a minimum qualification

(without giving weightage for the marks in the said

qualification as per NCTE guidelines) and cancelling the

advertisement dated 30th November, 2011 was not

sustainable and that the NCTE guidelines were binding.

Accordingly, the State was directed to proceed and

conclude the selection as per advertisement dated 30th

November, 2011.”

3. While the challenge was pending in this Court, certain interim

orders were passed considering exigencies of the situation and the fact that

large number of posts of Assistant Teachers were lying vacant. These

interim orders permitted the State Authorities to make appointments on

certain parameters which were stated in the interim orders. Those orders

were: -

2 WP No.39674 of 2012 Akhilesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. 3 2013 (6) ADJ 310

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

6

(A) By order dated 25.03.2014 it was directed: -

“By this interim order, we direct the State of Uttar

Pradesh to fill up the vacancies of Assistant Teachers

in the schools pursuant to the advertisement issued on

30.11.2011 as per the directions issued by the Division

Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv

Kumar Pathak & Ors. [Special Appeal (Defective)

No.237 of 2013] and connected matters as

expeditiously as possible at any rate within 12 weeks'

time from today.

Further, the State in the letter of appointment that will

be issued to the successful candidates shall mention

that their appointment is subject to the result of the civil

appeals that are pending before this Court.”

(B) The order dated 17.12.2014 noted that despite aforesaid

direction, the State had not carried out the appointment process. It was,

therefore, observed: -

“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length on various occasions, we are inclined to modify the order passed on 25th March, 2014, and direct that the State

Government shall appoint the candidates, whose names

have not been weeded out in the malpractice and who have

obtained/secured seventy percent marks in the Teacher

Eligibility Test (TET). The candidates belonging to

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes

and the physically handicapped persons, shall be appointed

if they have obtained/secured sixty-five percent marks. If

there is any policy of the State Government covering any

other category for the purpose of reservation, it may be

given effect to with the same percentage. It shall be

mentioned in the appointment letter that their appointment

shall be subject to the result of these appeals and they shall

not claim any equity because of the appointment, for it is

issued on the basis of the direction passed by this Court. ….

At this juncture, we must state that the

advertisement was issued to fill up 72,825 vacancies in

the post of Assistant Teachers, who have to impart

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

7

education to students of Classes I to V. We have been

apprised by the learned counsel for the respondents that

there are three lacs posts lying vacant as on today. In

this context, we must recapitulate the objects and

reasons from the Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009, ……

The State, as the guardian of all citizens and also

with a further enhanced and accentuated

responsibilities for the children, has a sacrosanct

obligation to see that the children are educated. Almost

two thousand years back, Kautaliya had stated that the

parents who do not send their children to have the

teachings, deserve to be punished. Similar was the

climate in England almost seven centuries back. Thus,

the significance of education can be well recognized.

In such a situation, we cannot conceive that the posts

would lie vacant, students go untaught and the schools

look like barren in a desert waiting for an oasis. The

teacher shall serve the purpose of oasis in the field of

education. Hence, the aforesaid directions.”

(C) The order dated 25.2.2015 took note of the affidavit filed on

behalf of the State in which it was indicated that in respect of 72,825

posts of Trainee Teachers, the State had initiated process of counseling

and only those candidates who had secured 70% marks amongst

General Category Candidates and 65% amongst the Reserved

Category Candidates were permitted to participate in the counseling. It

was observed by this Court:-

“As we find, as of today, 29174 vacancies are

available to be filled up. If the persons belonging to

Scheduled Casts/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward

Classes have secured 65% marks and their number

meets the requirement, the vacancies meant for their

quota, shall be filled up by taking into consideration the

said percentage. ……

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

8

The State Government is directed to issue the

public notice within four weeks from today requiring

the selected candidates in respect of 29174 vacancies

to join and if any candidate fails to join within the

stipulated period provided in the public notice, he will

forefeit his right of appointment in this selection. To

clarify, we may add that the public notice shall be

published in widely circulated newspapers and the

candidates shall be given three weeks time to join

failing which the conditions prescribed hereinabove

shall follow.”

(D) The order dated 02.11.2015 noted as under:-

“It is submitted by Mr. Bhatia that keeping in view the

order dated 27.07.2015, as against 72825 posts

advertised, 43,077 candidates have been appointed,

who, after completion of the training till September

2015, are working in praesenti. It is also submitted that

15,058 candidates are undergoing training out of which

8,500 shall be appearing in the examination on 16th and

17th November, 2015 and the rest will be appearing in

the examination after completion of their training. In

the result, around 14,640 posts still remain vacant.”

(E) The order dated 07.12.2015 noted submissions of the learned

counsel for the State as recorded in the order dated 02.11.2015 and the

grievances of some of the candidates that though they had secured more

than 70% marks in TET examination in the General Category, they

were not being considered. Following direction was thereafter passed:-

“At this juncture, we may state that Mr. Bhatia, learned

AAG submitted that in pursuance of the direction of

this Court on the earlier occasion and prior to that more

than 75,000 representations were received and after

scanning the same, the State Government has found

12,091 persons eligible for being appointed subject to

verification of antecedents. Let the said persons be

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

9

appointed subject to the said verification within six

weeks hence.”

4. The appeals were thereafter heard finally and by its judgment and

final order dated 25.07.20171, this Court held as under:-

“16. There is no manner of doubt that the NCTE,

acting as an ‘academic authority’ under Section 23 of

the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31st March,

2010 issued by the Central Government as well as

under Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, was

competent to issue Notifications dated 23rd August,

2010 and 11th February, 2011. The State Government

was under obligation to act as per the said notifications

and not to give effect to any contrary rule. However,

since NCTE itself has taken the stand that notification

dated 11th February, 2011 with regard to the weightage

to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not

mandatory which is also a possible interpretation, the

view of the High Court in quashing the 15th

Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be interfered

with. Accordingly, while we uphold the view that

qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are binding,

requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a

mandatory requirement.”

However, considering the facts and circumstances and particularly

that various interim orders were passed from time to time, it was observed

by this Court:-

“17. As a result of above, in normal course the State

would have been at liberty to proceed with the selection

in terms of advertisement dated 7th December, 2012 in

accordance with the amended rules by way of 15th

amendment, in view of developments which have

taken place during pendency of these appeals, the said

advertisement cannot proceed and while upholding the

said advertisement, relief has to be moulded in the light

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

10

of developments that have taken place in the

interregnum.

18. Vide interim order dated 25th March, 2014, this

Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to fill up the

vacancies of Assistant Teachers in terms of the

impugned judgment. Thereafter, on 17th December,

2014, the said order was modified and the State was

directed to appoint candidates whose names were not

involved in malpractices in the TET test and who had

obtained 70% marks (65% for SC, ST, OBC and

physically handicapped or any other category covered

by the Government policy for reservation). 54,464

posts have already been filled up in compliance of the

orders of this Court. The said appointments were

subject to result of these matters. It was also observed

that if anyone without TET qualification is appointed

his services will be terminated. Vide order dated 2nd

November, 2015 it was noted that against 72,825 posts

which were advertised, 43,077 candidates had

completed training and were working while 15,058

candidates were undergoing training. Around 14,690

posts were vacant. It was further observed that

candidates who had the required percentage of marks

in terms of order dated 27th July, 2015 were to file their

applications and a Committee constituted for the said

purpose could verify such percentage and if parity was

found the same benefit could be extended.

19. We have been informed that 66,655 teachers have

already been appointed in pursuance of the interim

orders of this Court. Having regard to the entirety of

circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the same.

We make it clear that the State is at liberty to fill up the

remaining vacancies in accordance with law after

issuing a fresh advertisement.”

5. The judgment and final order thus noted that 66,655 teachers were

already appointed in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court

and having regard to the entirety of the circumstances those appointments

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

11

were not to be disturbed. As regards the remaining vacancies, the State was

given liberty to fill up those vacancies in accordance with law after issuing

fresh advertisement.

6. Sometime in May, 2018 present Contempt Petitions were filed

submitting inter alia that in terms of the interim orders issued by this Court

which merged in the judgment and final order dated 25.07.20171, the

candidates who had secured more than 70% marks in General Category and

65% marks in Reserved Category were required to be appointed; though the

State made clear representation that the qualified persons would be

appointed, it did not appoint the Contempt Petitioners and as such the orders

passed by this Court were violated. It was submitted that the State

Government had incorrectly calculated the figure of 66,655; that as recorded

in the order dated 07.12.2015, there was no objection to issue appointment

orders in respect of 12,091 candidates and yet the State had not issued

appointment orders to the concerned candidates, including Contempt

Petitioners. It was further submitted that the Contempt Petitioners were part

of the list of 12,091 candidates that was officially declared and yet they were

completely sidelined by the State.

7. Notice was issued in the Contempt Petition on 20.08.2018 and

thereafter in its order dated 04.10.2018, this Court observed:-

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

12

“Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned advocate appearing

for the petitioner in Contempt Petition Nos.1391-1419

of 2018 submitted that in terms of the order dated

07.12.2015 passed by this Court at the interim stage,

12,091 candidates were found to be eligible by the

State Government. The submission made on behalf of

the State was recorded thus:

“At this juncture, we may state that Mr.

Bhatia, learned AAG submitted that in

pursuance of the direction of this Court on

the earlier occasion and prior to that more

than 75,000 representations were received

and after scanning the same, the State

Government has found 12,091 persons

eligible for being appointed subject to

verification of antecedents. Let the said

persons be appointed subject to the said

verification within six weeks hence.”

As per his submission, all those 12,091 candidates

were to be given appointments subject to verification

of the antecedents. Mr. Dave then invited our attention

to the reply affidavit filed by Dr. Prabhat Kumar,

Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education,

Government of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it has been

stated that out of this body of 12,091 candidates, only

400 candidates were selected. According to Mr. Dave,

nothing has been indicated in the affidavit as to why

and in what manner only 400 names could be selected.

Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel

appearing for the State drew our attention to Annexure

A-2 annexed to said reply affidavit. According to him,

after having found 12,091 candidates to be eligible, the

State had undertaken an exercise where going by the

choice given by the candidates at the stage of

counselling, 400 candidates came to be selected.

According to him, all the present petitioners did not

fulfil the cut-off as against Districts they had opted for

and, therefore, they were not selected.

Having gone through the record, we deem it

appropriate to pass the following directions:

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

13

A. The entire record including the stages when names of 400 candidates were

selected from out of the entire body of

12,091 candidates be placed before

the Court. The record of the

counselling shall also be made

available for perusal of the Court.

Copies of the record need not be filed

but the original record shall be made

available for perusal of the Court.

B. A responsible officer who is aware of the intricacies of the matter may also

be asked to remain present on the next

date of hearing.

List the matters on 27.11.2018.”

8. The order dated 29.01.2019 passed by this Court noted the fact that

a category wise chart was presented by the State and the respective parties

were allowed to make submissions on the basis of that Chart. Next order

dated 27.02.2019 noted the submissions of the learned counsel for the

Contempt Petitioners about certain irregularities in the Chart and the State

was called upon to explain the position. The order was to the following

effect: -

“Pursuant to last order dated 29.01.2019, a chart

has been placed by learned counsel for the State of

Uttar Pradesh for perusal of this Court. At the same

time, case of a candidate named Anuradha Gupta has

been placed by way of illustration by Mr. Siddharth

Dave, learned counsel for the contempt petitioners.

According to the illustration Ms. Anuradha Gupta

born on 25.09.1980 had secured 101 marks in TET

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

14

examination and had also participated in the

counselling in respect of District Mirzapur. These facts

are not disputed by the learned counsel for the

respondent-State. The illustration indicates that 25

candidates against category "female backward class -

Arts" had also secured 101 marks and all of them are

juniors in age to said Anuradha Gupta.

It is also accepted by the respondent-State that if

two candidates are at the same level of marks, the

governing criteria is to select that person who is senior

in age. Going by the criteria, prima facie, Anuradha

Gupta ought to have been selected but she was not. And

all those 25 candidates who had secured same marks

but were juniors in age, were selected.

At the request of Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi,

learned counsel for the State, we adjourn the matter for

three weeks so that all such cases can be

comprehensively looked into and a report can be

presented before this Court.

In order to facilitate the exercise, we give liberty

to all the learned counsel appearing for various

candidates to give the details of such candidates who

had appeared for counselling in one or more districts,

where someone with lesser number of marks or junior

in age (though had secured same marks) has been

selected. A copy of the chart given by Ms. Chaturvedi

shall be handed over to Mr. Siddharth Dave from

whom copies be obtained by all the other learned

counsel. If there be any such illustrations, the details

and data in that behalf shall be furnished to Ms.

Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the State within two

weeks from today. No case shall thereafter be

entertained. The state authorities can thereafter check

every such illustration and see whether the candidates

in question would actually fall in the zone of selection

or not. A comprehensive report shall thereafter be

presented before this Court.”

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

15

9. The responses were thereafter filed and the matter was heard on

22.07.2019. After recording submissions of the parties, the State Authorities

were called upon to file an appropriate affidavit as under:-

“Thus, according to the State Government, after

considering 75,000 odd representations it had found

12091 candidates to be eligible for appointment,

subject to verification of antecedents.

It appears that the process that was undertaken

however did not result in giving appointment orders to

all 12091 candidates. As stated in para 21 of the

affidavit dated 01.10.2016, out of this body of 12091

candidates, only 391 candidates came to be appointed

as the others did not take part in the selection process

or had not opted for certain Districts or could not be

selected going by the cut off for the concerned

Districts.

The affidavit thus stated that though opportunity

was given to all 12091 candidates for counseling, the

State could fill up only 391 posts. The affidavit further

stated that one more opportunity was given by the State

so that any candidate who was left out could ventilate

his grievance and the advertisement was accordingly

published on 06.02.2016. The affidavit then stated that

a further step was undertaken by the State and another

advertisement was published on 08.02.2016 giving an

opportunity to any candidate who was left out from

being considered when the list of 12091 candidates was

formalized. Para 25 of the affidavit stated as under:

“25. That as per the advertisement dated

30.11.2011 there were 72825 vacancies and

till dated 64257 vacancies have been filled

up and in addition to it, appointment letters

are being issued in respect of 1536 posts, as

per the parameters fixed by this Hon’ble

Court and following the procedure

prescribed in the recruitment Rules. The

remaining vacancies belong to special

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

16

horizontal reservation categories of

handicapped persons, Dependants of

Freedom Fighters, ex-servicemen and also

the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe

candidates and these remaining vacancies

cannot be filled up by the candidates of any

other category.

It is pertinent to mention that 862 candidates

who were given ad hoc appointment on the

basis of order of this Hon’ble Court dated

07.12.2015, are not included in the 64257

filled up vacancies and also the 1536 posts

against which appointment letters are being

issued.”

The matter was thereafter heard in April, 2017 and

final judgment was pronounced in 2017.

Mr. Pallav Sishodia, learned senior advocate

appearing for the State submitted that the stand so

taken in the affidavit dated 01.10.2016 was never

controverted by any of the candidates nor any

grievance was projected on behalf of them. Mr.

Sishodia submits that the grievance was raised more

than a year after disposal of the matter in July, 2017.

Mr. Siddharth Dave, Mr. Ajit Sinha, Mr. V.

Shekhar, Ms. V. Mohana and Mr. N.K. Mody, learned

Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of some of the

candidates submitted that the figures coming forth

from the aforesaid orders dated 2.11.2015 and

7.12.2015 were completely at variance with the

contents of the affidavit. It was submitted that if 43777

candidates were already appointed and 15058 were

undergoing training as reflected in the order dated

2.11.2015, it meant that as on 2.11.2015, 58,135

candidates were already given appointments or were

undergoing training. The vacancy situation projected

on 2.11.2015 at 14640 was thereafter crystalised to the

number of 12091 who were found to be eligible in all

respects. If out of 12091 only 391 candidates were

appointed, it would not be possible for the State

Government to indicate in the affidavit that 64257

persons were already given appointment. In that

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

17

situation, the number of candidates who were

appointed would be 58135 plus such number of

candidates as were drawn from the list of 12091

candidates.

Though we cannot disregard the fact that the

challenge has been raised more than a year after the

final judgment, we call upon the State Government to

indicate on affidavit by a competent person (the name

of Ms. Renuka Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary

[Basic Education] Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, was

suggested by the learned counsel for the State) giving

the following details:

(a) District-wise break-up of the last candidates in various categories in the

District who were given appointments by

October, 2016?

(b) Whether any fresh appointments were effected after October, 2016?

(c) Whether any person other than the one who

satisfied the requirement laid down by this

Court in its order dated 27.7.2015 as

modified by further orders of this Court was

given appointment? If so, the name, age,

and marks obtained by every such

candidate as against the cut off.”

10. An affidavit of compliance has since then been filed by Ms. Renuka

Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Basic Education,

Government of U.P., responding to queries raised in the order dated

22.07.2019 as under :-

“(a) District-wise break-up of the last candidates in various categories in the District who were given

appointment by October, 2016?

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

18

As per the information furnished by the District

authorities related to the said recruitment since the

selections were made to the vacancies allotted to the

district class/category wise, the information was

provided on a prescribed format by each district

showing the breakup of the last selected candidates in

various categories in the district who were given

appointments as a Trainee Teacher. As reported by the

district authorities 64257 appointments were made

before October, 2016 and 1536 selections/

appointments were under process to be completed

which is mentioned in the affidavit filed on 01 Oct,

2016. In addition to said selections, in compliance of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 07.12.2015,

862 candidates were selected on ad-hoc basis against

the list of 1100 candidates before 01 Oct, 2016. District

wise breakup of last candidate in various category in

75 district, as furnished by the district authorities is

annexed here with as Annexure No.A-1.

(b) whether any fresh appointments were effected after

October, 2016?

As reported by the district level authorities, no fresh

selection/appointment was made after October 2016

except the candidates against 1536 posts who were

under process and reported in the affidavit dated 01-

10-2016.

(c) Whether any person other than the one who

satisfied the requirement laid down by this Court in its

order dated 27.7.2015 as modified by further orders of

this Court was given appointment? If so, the name, age,

and marks obtained by every such candidates as against

the cut off.

As reported by the district level authorities related to

the said recruitment no person other than the ones who

satisfied the requirement laid down by this Court in its

order dated 27.7.2015 as modified by further orders of

this Court was given appointment. It is clarified here

that in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated

27.07.2015 the criterion/parameters fixed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in earlier orders are

mentioned. The 862 ad-hoc selections against the 1100

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

19

candidates list were made in compliance of Hon’ble

Supreme Court’s order dated 07.12.2015. It is pertinent

to mention here that some of the candidate selected

among 862 candidates on ad-hoc basis do not fulfill the

criterion/parameters fixed by Hon’ble Supreme court

in its order dated 27.07.2015 and earlier orders. It is to

be submitted that the details of these candidates were

given in the affidavit of 1.10.2016 at paras 9-14

therefore which are not being repeated for the sake of

brevity. In any case these deviations cannot be

presented as precedent nor any claim was ever made to

this effect. However, for ready reference the details of

these 862 candidates are annexed hereto as Annexure

A-2.”

11. Following facts, therefore, emerge from the record:-

(a) Large number of vacancies were lying unfilled while the

Civil Appeals were pending in this Court. Taking into

account the interest of the student community those

appointments were required to be made. A principle was,

therefore adopted by order dated 17.12.2014 that those who

had obtained more than 70% marks in TET Examination from

the general category and those who had obtained more than

65% marks from the reserved categories be given

appointments. The idea was clear that such candidates would

normally stand selected in the ultimate process of selection.

It was, however, made clear that such appointments would not

entitle the selected candidates to raise any claim in equity.

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

20

(b) In the selection process undertaken thereafter, initially 29,174

candidates were selected and a direction was issued on

25.02.2015 to fill up those posts.

(c) The next order dated 02.11.2015 recorded that as against

72,825 posts which were advertised, 43,077 candidates were

appointed, who after completion of training were actually

working while 15,058 candidates were undergoing training,

leaving about 14,640 posts still vacant.

(d) The exercise of selecting those who had secured minimum

marks in terms of criteria devised by order dated 17.12.2014

also resulted in finding 12,091 persons eligible subject to

verification of antecedents, as was recorded in the order dated

07.12.2015

(e) The list of these 12091 candidates was published and it is a

matter of record that the names of the contempt petitioners

were part of this list.

(f) According to para 21 of the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016 (which

has been referred to in the order dated 22.07.2019) out of these

12091 candidates, only 391 candidates could be appointed as

the others either did not take part in the selection process or

had not opted for certain Districts or could not be selected

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

21

going by the cut-off for the concerned District. This

development had happened way back in October 2016 and the

affidavit was on record since then.

(g) The State thereafter published another advertisement on

06.02.2016 so that if any candidate was left out, his

candidature could be considered. Steps were thereafter taken

and another advertisement was published on 08.02.2016.

Para 25 of the Affidavit dated 01.10.2016 as quoted in the

order dated 22.07.2019, dealt with this issue in clear terms and

was thus part of the record.

(h) Aforesaid para 25 of the Affidavit thus made it clear that as

on the date when the affidavit was filed, 64,257 vacancies

were filled up and 1,536 appointment letters were being

issued in addition. It was also stated that 862 candidates were

given ad-hoc appointments in terms of the order dated

07.12.2015 and were not included in the number of 64,257.

These three figures aggregate to number 66,655.

(i) Thus, the reasons for not appointing all the persons who were

part of list of 12,091 candidates were available on record from

October 2016 onwards.

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

22

(j) At no stage any grievance was made till the matter was

disposed of in July 2017 which gave the status of permanency

to those who were appointed under various interim orders

passed by this Court.

(k) The grievance was made for the first time almost a year after

when these contempt petitions were filed.

(l) The order dated 22.07.2019 had, therefore, observed that the

Court could not disregard the fact that challenge had been

raised more than a year after the final Judgment. Even then,

the State Government was called upon to indicate on affidavit

certain issues. The reason was obvious that if there was large

scale infraction of interim orders passed by this Court which

merged in the final Judgment, the matter could still have been

considered.

(m) However, the response filed by the State Government now

indicates with clarity that no fresh appointments were effected

after 2016 and no person other than those who satisfied the

requirements laid down by this Court in its Order dated

27.07.2015 as modified by further orders, was given any

appointment. The State Government has also placed on

CONTEMTP PETITION (C) NOS.1332-1360 OF 2018 IN Civil Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014 etc. etc. Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Prabhat Kumar & Ors.

23

record the District wise break-up of all candidates appointed

in various categories in all 75 Districts of the State.

(n) Even after the filing of the response by the State, as indicated

in para 10 hereinabove, nothing substantial cold be pointed

out by any of the candidates or contempt petitioners.

12. In the circumstances, we do not see anything wrong in the process

undertaken by the State Government in pursuance of various interim orders

passed by this Court and also in pursuance of the Judgment and final order

dated 25.07.20171. The fact that out of 12,091 candidates only few could be

selected and the reasons for non-selection of rest of the candidates, were part

of the record since October 2016. In any case, response filed by the State is

also clear. In the totality of the circumstances, in our view, there has not

been any violation of any of the orders passed by this Court as alleged in the

contempt petitions or otherwise.

13. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in these contempt petitions

which are directed to be closed.

..………….……………J.

(Uday Umesh Lalit)

..………….……………J.

(M. R. Shah)

New Delhi;

December 13, 2019.

SANJAI KUMAR Vs DR. PRABHAT KUMAR

SANJAI KUMAR Vs DR. PRABHAT KUMAR