Court Orders Reinstatement After Selection-Process Error but Denies Back Wages; Relief Limited to Facts

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by an applicant who challenged the Jharkhand High Court’s dismissal of his writ seeking consequences of his termination after a contested recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). The appeal arose from a Letters Patent Appeal and attacked the Division Bench’s affirmation of the Single Judge’s order in W.P.(S) No. 3391 of 2020.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the peculiar facts of the case, quashed the office orders canceling the appellant’s appointment and directing recovery of salary, and directed reinstatement with continuity in service and terminal benefits, while denying back wages for the intervening period. The Court observed the appellant had acted on the appointment letter and had left his earlier job after joining the TGT post; it emphasised the principle that a candidate should not be penalised for administrative errors by selection authorities. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The appellant cannot be penalized for the mistakes committed by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission or the District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka." The Court also made clear that "the appellant shall not be entitled to back wages for the period during which he remained out of employment" and that the relief was confined to the "peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case" and "shall not be treated as precedent in any other matter." The orders were directed to be complied with on or prior to 1st October, 2025.

Background The dispute arose from an advertisement by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission inviting applications for TGTs in Government Secondary Schools, reserving 25% of posts for teachers of Government Primary Schools with at least five years’ experience. The appellant was employed since 2008 in St. Teresa Girls Middle School, Dudhani, a 100% government‑aided minority school. Believing himself eligible, he applied and obtained a No Objection Certificate from the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka. The Commission marked him successful and, following consideration by the District Education Establishment Committee on 19 October 2019, an appointment letter issued on 24 October 2019; he joined on 26 October 2019.

About a year later the State cancelled his appointment by office order dated 7 September 2020 and sought recovery of salary drawn during service by a 12 September 2020 order. The appellant challenged the cancellation and recovery in the High Court, which dismissed his writ; the Division Bench upheld that dismissal. The State’s case, as advanced below, was that the 25% quota applied only to teachers of Government Elementary Schools and that a government‑aided minority school did not qualify. The appellant argued he met the advertised requirement, had been issued an appointment letter and had relied on official decisions and the NOC.

The Supreme Court found that, although the appellant was not strictly eligible under the advertisement, the Selection Commission and District Committee had accepted his application, found him suitable and issued appointment documents, which induced the appellant to relinquish prior employment. In that factual matrix the Court held it would be inequitable to penalise him for administrative mistakes; accordingly it quashed the cancellation and recovery orders, directed immediate reinstatement with continuity in service and terminal benefits, but denied back wages for the period of non‑employment. The Court expressly limited the order to the case's peculiar facts and declined to treat the judgment as precedent.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1146 Case Title: Rajesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sudhir Bisla, Advocate