Supreme Court of India
B. L. MANDAWAT AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS
- Citation
- 1993 INSC 266
- Decided
- 17 August 1993
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Court held that the 27 July 1984 assurance creates a binding obligation on the AEE Society to absorb the petitioner and similarly situated teachers, and the 50% interview mark requirement cannot be used to defeat that obligation.
Summary
The petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher employed at the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project (RAPP) School since 1972, sought direction for her absorption by the Atomic Energy Education Society (AEE Society) after the school was transferred to that autonomous body. The Central Government had issued a letter on 27 July 1984 assuring that the teachers would be given appropriate employment, retaining their designation, grade, pay and allowances. The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the writ petition on the basis of that assurance, but the AEE Society later refused to absorb the petitioner, citing a 50% minimum mark requirement in its selection interview. The Court examined whether the 1984 assurance created a binding obligation on the AEE Society and whether the selection criteria could override that promise. It held that the assurance was enforceable, the AEE Society could not evade its duty by invoking the interview marks, and the requirement of 50% was not a condition of the guarantee. Consequently, the Court ordered the AEE Society to absorb the petitioner, preserving her service benefits retrospectively, and directed compliance within two months.
Issues considered
- Whether the assurance given in the Government of India's letter dated 27 July 1984 obligates the Atomic Energy Education Society to absorb the petitioner and other RAPP School teachers after the school's transfer.
- Whether the AEE Society can lawfully refuse absorption on the ground that the petitioner failed to secure the stipulated 50% marks in the selection interview.
- Whether an autonomous society, though independent of the Central Government, is bound by the government's assurance and the Supreme Court's orders arising from that assurance.
Subjects
government assuranceabsorption of teachersAtomic Energy Education SocietyRajasthan Atomic Power Projectpublic sector employmentselection criteriaconstitutional remedyArticle 32
Judgment
B. L. MANDAWAT AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..
AUGUST 17, 1993
[R.M. SAHAI AND N. VENKATACHALA, J.J.] B
Abs01ption-Transfer of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project School to
the Atomic Energy Education Society-Wlit filed by teachers of RAPP School
dismissed upon assurance by govemment that it will find approp1iate employ-
ment for them-Held, AEE Society cannot go back on the assura11ci:-Ab- c
so1ptio11 of Petitioner/teacher directed.
The petitioner joined the R<\PP School in 1972, and was promoted
as a Trained Graduate Teacher in 1983. She had an unquestionable service
record.
The Central Government desired that the R<\PP School which was
run by the Department of Atomic Energy should be transferred to the AEE
Society, so as to enable the latter to run it independently of the Department
of Atomic Energy, with its readiness to meet the whole expenditure to be
incurred by the AEE Society in running that school. E
In 1981, one of the teachers of the RAPP School filed a petition in
this Court, apprehending retrenchment. The petitioner got impleaded in
1984. On 27th July, 1984, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India,
Department of Atomic Energy, sent a letter to the f!'Spondents' counsel
which was placed for consideration of this Court. It was stated therein, F
that retrenchment compensation would be paid to teachers and other
employees on closure, and that the Government of India in the Department
of Atomic Energy will use their good offices with the Atomic Energy
Education Society which is substantially financed by the Government, to
help find appropriate employment to the petitioners and other teachers of G
the R<\PP Higher Secondary School (English Medium) protecting their
existing designation, grade, pay and allowances.
On the basis of this assurance, this Court dismissed the case on 8th
May, 1987. On 10th August, 1987, this Court dismissed a contempt petition
directing the respondents to consider the possibility to absorb the H
575
576 < ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A petitioners in accordance. "ith law:.On 25th April, 1988, the Additional
Solicitor General ga,·e an undertakinj)o the Court that the live petitioners
therein would be absorbed on the foutiilgofthe-others. This assurance was
re>tated in this Court's order dated 10th l\lay 1988. On 6th September,
1988, the order of this Court recorded .the ASG's assurance that the
B petitioner could appear before the selection committed which would con-
sider their case objectively, dispassionately and s)mpathetically. On 4th
Au~~st, 1989, the Chief Administrative Officer, disregarding the assurance
of the respondents,. sent a letter regarding refund of pension to AEE
. ·.. Society by those paid retrenchment and other terminal benefits for having
served in the RAPP School.
c . . . . \
In the meantime, by letter dated 3rd August 1987, the services of the
petitioner. were terminated upon payment of. three months' wages alld
compensation as per the rules. This was also the date when the RAPP
Higher Secondary (English Medium) Scholl! was closed.
D In this application, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the
respondents to fulfil the assurance of her absorption in service of the AEE
Society Schools, which are run by the AEE Society.
The respondents contended that. since this Court dismissed the \lTit
E petition on merits, there was no obligation on the AEE Society, an
autonomous society which is independent from the Central Government to
absorb the petitioner as a teacher in its RAPP School after the same was
transferred to it by the Central Government, and that in any event, the .
petitioner had not satisfied the requirement of 50 per cent marks at the
- interview to be absorbed in the School.
F
·-, .. '·.Allowing the petition, this Court
HELD : 1. This Court dismissed the main mil petition on the basis
of an assurance contained in the letter dated 27th July, 1984 given to the -
G ,Court, thus pa)ing the way for. the AEE Society to take over the manage-
. ment.of the School in which the petitioner was a teacher. (585-F·G)
The .Court in its subsequent orders sought to impress upon the
. respondent the need to fulfil their obligation of absorption of the
petitioner and others similarly situated in the schools of the AEE Society,
H and nowhere relieved it of its obligation to absorb the teachers in terms of ··~
B.L. MANDAWAT v. U.0.1. 577
its assurance. [586-D-E) A
2. The petitioner who had admittedly rendered creditable service as
a teacher of the RAPP school for over 18 years cannot be refused absorp-
tion for not securing SO per cent marks in the· interview held by the
Selection Committee of the AEE Society. The assurance did not permit
absorption of teachers npon selection as if they were recruiting them B
afresh. Nor does the tenor of the orders allow the plea that the assurance
was not possible of compliance on account of teachers of the RAPP School
not being given 50 per cent marks by the Selection Committee.
[586-F-H; 587-B]
c
Moreover, all the RAPP candidates called for interview are shown to
fall short of 50 per cent, the marks required for selection. It is difficult to
comprehend how 5 Selection Committee members could give the common
percentage of marks for each candidate. Criteria, if any, which formed the
basis on which marks had come to be allocated by the members of the
Selection Committee is not indicated in the marks-sheet. Further, the D
requirement of minimum marks for selection as teachers has been relaxed
by the Management of the AEE Society in case of two candidates, showing
thereby that the requirement of minimum marks was not a rigid rule of
selection. [587-C-D]
E
It appears that the selection process, thought of by the AEE Society,
is to somehow wriggle out of the assurance contained in the letter dated
27th July, 1984 prvduced for getting the writ petition dismissed and not to
carry out that assurance, on which this Court acted in dismissing the writ
petition. [587-E] f
3. The AEE Society is directed to absorb the petitioner as a Trained
Graduate Teacher in its school at Rajasthan Atomic Energy Project site
and if there is no school there, in any other of its schools by protecting her
designation, grade, pay and allowances retrospectively from the date of her
termination as a Trained Graduate Teacher of'the RAPP School, if un- G
avoidable, by creating a supernumerary post for the purpose. The Central
Government is to meet the expenditure, as assured. The petitioner to be
paid all the benefits of the post to which she would have been entitled as
if her services as a teacher w·ere not terminated. The directions to be
complied with in two months. [588-B-D) H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. lS.C.R.
A ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. I of 1991.
IN
Writ Petitions (e) Nos. 1470 of 1981 & 16044 of 1984.
8 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
E.X. Joseph and the petitioner in person for the petitioners.
G. Ramaswamy, Ashok Desai, V.C. Mahajan, U.S. Sagar, N,K. Sahoo,
P.H. Parekh, Ms. A. Subhasini and B.D. Sharma for the respondents.
c
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
In this application, I.A. No. 1of1991 filed in W.P. No. 16044 of 1984
(W.P. No. 1470 of 1981) by the petitioner therein Smt. Nirmal Bhalla, it is
prayed that appropriate directions shall be issued by this Court to the
D Respondents - (1) The Union of India, (2) The Chairman, Department of
Atomic Energy, (3) The Chief Administrative Officer, Atomic Power
Project, ( 4) The Principal, Atomic Energy Education Society, (5) The
Chief Project Engineer, Rajasthan Atomic Power Project and (6) The
Secretary, Atomic Energy Education society, to make them carry out the
E assurance contained in letter No. 2/15(6)/81-PP Vol. II dated 27th July,
1984 of the Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy in the
matter of absorbing her by Respondent-6 -the Atomic Energy Education
Society (the AEE Society) protecting her existing designation, grade pay
and allowances as a teacher in the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project School
(the RAPP School).
F
The material facts and circumstances which form the basis of
petitioner's application \Varrant mention, at the outset.
The petitioner \Vas a teacher in the RAPP School cversince thc,ryear
1972 and had been in the year 1983 duly selected and promoted as trained
G Graduate Teacher. Her shvice record was unquestionable. The Central
Government desired that the RAPP School which was run by the Depart-
ment of Atomic Energy should be transferred to Lhe AEE Society, so as
to enable the latter lo run it independently of the Department of Atomic
Energy, with its readiness to meet the whole expenditure to be incurred by
H the AEE Society in running that school.
B.L. MANDAWA"I'v. U.0.l. 579
The <lesired transfer of the RAPP School to the AEE Society came A
to be questioned by one of the teachers of the RAPP School in Writ
Petition (C) No. l470 of 1981 filed in this Court, apprehending retrench-
ment of existing RAPP School teachers by the AEE Society, in the event
of the <lesired transfer taking place. The petitioner was a teacher who got
impleaded in that writ petition and was treated as a writ petitioner in W.P.
B
(C) No. 16044 of 1984. When the main writ petition along with the other
writ petitions were heard by this Court and had to be decided, and
opportunity was afforded by this Court to the Respondents, as <lesired by
them, to have the matter amicably settled with the teachers and other
employees of the RAPP School. Thereafter, letter No. 2/15(6)/81-PP Vol.
JI dated 27th July, 1984 sent by the Joint Secretary to the Government of C
India, to Respondents' Learned counsel, was placed for consideration of
the Court. The material portion of the letter read:
"WHEREAS the matter has been re-examined and reconsidered
by the respondents No. 1 to 5 in the said writ petition,
D
and WHEREAS the said respondents earnestly desire to help find
a reasonable compromise of the said writ,
I, S.K. Bhandarkar, Joint Secretary to the Government of India,
in the Department of Atomic Energy on behalf of respondent No. .E
1 Union of India offer the following proposals for consideration
of the petitioners for an amicable compromise. The other respon-
dents No. 2 to 5 are subordinate officers of respondent No.1.
(1) In accordance with Government of India's decision which has
been approved by their Ministry of Labour too, the Govern- F
ment of India in the Department of Atomic Energy will close
the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project Higher Secondary
School (English Medium) on 31st of December, 1.984.
(2) The petitioners and all other teachers will be paid at the time G
of closure retrenchment compensation payable in law.
(3) The Government of India in the Department of Atomic
Energy will use their good offices with the Atomic Energy
Education Society which is substantially financed by the
Government, to help find appropriate employment to the H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A petitioners and other teachers of the RAPP Higher Secon-
dary School (English Medium) and protection of their exist-
ing designation, grade, pay and allowances.
I understand that the Atomic Energy Education Society
Respondent No. 6 which is an autonomous body, and to which a
B request was already made by the Department of Atomic Energy
to open a School at the Rajasthan Atomic i:ower Project site too
has made its proposals to the petitioners for an amicable com-
promise.
I shall be grateful if the petitioners let the respondents know
c their reaction to the above proposals by 6th of August, 1984."
This Court, acting on the assurance contained in the said letter made and
order on 8th May, 1987 dismissing Writ Petition (C) No. 1470/81 and
discharging the Rule Nisi which had been ordered therein. That order
D read:
''
"Ha\ing considered the grievances of the petitioner in this Writ
Petition, we are of the opinion that in view of the letter No.
2/15(6)/81-PP Vol. II dated 27th July, 1984 of the Govt. of India,
Depariment of Atomic Energy this writ petition has become in-
E fructuous. The grievances of the petitioner have been fully met by
the assurance contained in the aforesaid letter. In that view of the
matter, this application is dismissed. Rule Nisi discharged. There
is no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated."
By the dismissal of the main W.P. (C) No. 1470/81, the order writ
F petitions including W.P. (C) No. 16044 of 1984 of the petitioner, which
were of the other teachers of the RAPP School who were allowed to be
impleaded in the main writ petition, came to an end.
Subsequent evasive attitudes of Respondents when had inevitably led
G the petitioner and other teachers similarly treated by Respondents, to move
this Court by filing a Contempt petition, that petition was dismissed by an
order made by this Court on 10th August, 1987, by stating thus:
"We direct the Respondent (s) to consider the case of the
petitioner and the petitioners who have not yet been absorbed,
H . they will see the possibility to absorb the petitioners in accordance
B.L MANDAWAT v. U.O.I. 581
with law." A
Again, on 25-4-1988, subsequent Contempt Petitions filed by the
teachers against the Respondents having come up for orders before this
court, they were disposed of because of the undertaking of Mr. G. Ramas-
wamy, the then Additional Solicitor General that Respondents 4 and 5 will
absorb all the five petitioners on the footing of others. However, that B
undertaking when was recalled by this Court by its Order dated 10th May,
1988, Respondents-authorities were asked to consider the cases of five
petitioners including the petitioner for absorption.
Thereafter, another order was made by this Court on 6th September, C
1988 which read:
"Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case
we had requested the learned Additional Solicitor General lo
looking into this matter and to see if any appropriate chance for
reconsideration of the case of the petitioners could be arranged D
for. He has assured the Court, having looked into the n1altt:r,
though there was perhaps no legal infirmity in the process followed
for selection of the petitioners by the respondents, as a matter of
fair chance the respondents will give to the petitioners another
reasonable opportunity at such date which will be intimated to the E
counsel for the petitioners so that the petitioners can appear for
interview again according to the norms of the Selection Committee.
The Selection Committee will consider the case of the petitioners
objectively, dispassionately and sympathetically. This order will not
be treated as a precedent as it is passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case. F
The Civil MisceJlaneous petition is disposed of accordingly."
Respondent-6 (the AEE Society) was in no mood to fulfil the as-
surance of the Respondents contained in the Jetter dated 27th July, 1984 G
placed before this Court leading to the dismissal of the writ petition and
subsequent orders made by this Court, becomes obvious from its Chief
Administrative Officer's letter dated 4th August, 1989 which reads:
"Reference is invited to this office circular No. AEES/A(l.46)
89/2573 dated 20.3.1989 wherein the Ex-teachers of the RAPP H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A Higher Secondary (E.M.) School, Ravat Bhata who were
retrenched from service on the closure of the school, were re-
quested to exercise their option either to rel ain the retrenchment
and other terminal benefits received at on their retrenchment from
RAPP School, in which even their past service in RAPP School
will not count for pension under AEEs, or
B
(b) to refllnd ·the retrenchment and other terminal hcnefits
received by them at the time of their retrenchment from RAPP
administration with interest thereon.
C .(a) 6% from the date of receipt of those benefits till the date of
refund of the amount to AEES either in lumpsum or in monthly
instalments not exceeding thirty six and count the service rendered
in RAPP School for pension under AEES."
Non-fulfilment of the assurance contained in the letter dated 27th
D July, 1984 on the footing of which this Court dismissed the main writ
petition resulting in dismissal of other writ petitions including that of the
writ petitioner (Smt. Nirmal Bhalla) is said to have led her to make several
attempts in this Court and outside, to ensure fulfihnent of the a'8urance
but in vain. With no alternative left, she is said to have made to present
E application praying for issue of a direction to Respondents to fulfil the
assurance of her absorption in service of the AEE Society Schools, which
are run by the AEE Society.
How, clumsily the petitioner is treated by the Respondents, immedi-
ately they got the writ petition dismissed by this Court on 8th May, 1987,
F since becomes apparent from the notice dated 3rd August, .1987 issued to
her, that notice is excerpted in ful~ thus:
"GOVERNMENT OF lNDIA
Rajasthan Atomic Power Station
G
Plant Site,
Anushakti-P.O.
No. RAPS/09000/0M/87/S/900 Dt. 3 Aug., 1987
NOTICE
B.L. MANDAWAT v. U.O.I. 583
Whereas implementation of the decision of Government of • A
India, Department of Atomic Energy to close the Rajasthan
Atomic Power Station Higher Secondary (English. Medium)
School in 1981 had been kept in abeyance following the stay order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14-5-1981;
Whereas aforesaid stay and other interim orders were vacated B-
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision of 8-5-1987, in view of
D.A.E.'s letter No. 2/15(6)/81-PP Vol.II of 27.7.1984;
Whereas the Department of Atomic Energy had informed the
Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, vide their letter C
No. 2/10(24)/87-PP/1084 dated 25.5.1987 that the RAPS Higher
Secondary (English Medium) School would be closed w.e.f.
25.7.1987.
Whereas the Department of Atomic Energy had also submitted
notice for permission of closure vide their letter No.2/10(24)/87-PP D
dated July 3, 1987, and now that authority has held that the
permission for closure is not required in the present case;
Whereas pursuant to the above referred assurances contained
in DA.E's Jetter No. 2/15(6)81-PP Vol. II dated 27.7.1984, the
existing teaching and non-teaching staff were advised to made their E
applications through RAPS by 25.7.1987 for employment in the
Atomic Energy Education Society;
And whereas, the RAPS Higher Secondary (English Medium)
School is closed w.c.f. 3.8.1987;
F
Now, therefore, Smt. Nirm<U Bhalla designation T.G.T is hereby
given this notice that her services shall stand terminated w.e.f.
3$.1987. Three months' wages (as applicable) in lieu of notice
]'llJriod is hereby offered and paid to her. She may collect her
compensation as per rules from Pay & Accounts Officer, Rajasthan G
Atomic Power Station, during working hours any time after
6.8.1987 onwards.
Sd/-
(G.V. Nadkarny)
Chief Superintendent H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Ends. Cheque no.
085475 dated 3.8.1987
for Rs. 6216.00
Smt. Nirmal Bhalla,
T.G.T. (Through Principal, RAPS
B Hr. Secondary, E.fvl. School."
The tone of the letter, as could be seen therefrom is, tbat the
Supreme Court, when by its order dated 8th May, 1987 has dismissed the
writ petition and vacated the stay granted by it earlier in view of the letter
C dated 27th July, 1984, there is nothing in the way of terminating petitioner's
services as a teacher of the RAPP School and it is now for her to have her
fate determined by the AEE society to which she was advised to made an
application. However, one redeeming feature of this letter is that it says
that the advise given to her to make the application was in pursuance of
assurance given in the letter placed before this Court of the RAPP School
D teachers employment, by the AEE Society.
In the counter-affidavit filed in opposition to the said application on
behalf of Respondent-6, the Secretary, Atomic Energy Education Society,
no doubt admits in para 5 thereof, that it is substantially funded by the
E Department of Atomic Energy through its grants and that an order is
passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition on 8th May, 1987. But it
is claimed that this Court made the order dismissing the writ petition
although opposed by the petitioner. It is then said, that the erstwhile RAPP
School has since been run by an independent AEE Society, the continua-
F tion of the services of the petitioner in the RAPP School run by the AEE
Society, cannot arise. The stand so taken on behalf of Respondent-6, shows
how Respondent-6 is trying to wriggle out of the situation arising from the
letter of the Joint Secretary which was written at the instance of Rcspon-
dent-6, as well. Moreover, when the AEE Society got her interviewed by
its Selection Committee along with other candidates ®o had applied for
G appointment as teachers in the Schools of the Society, it is said that the
petitioner's performance not beiog s·atisfactory, she could not be ap-
pointed. Thus the grounds put-forth in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf
of Respondent-6, the AEE Society for refusal of absorption of the
petitioner, are two - (i) That this Court since dismissed the writ petition . ·
H on ments, such dismissal does not impose an obligation on the part of ·.,
1
B.L. MANDAWAT v. u.o.r. 585
'-'/l~spondent-6, the AEE Society, an autonomous society which is inde- A
pendent from the Central Government to absorb the petitioner as a teacher
in its RAPP School after the same was transferred to it by the Central
Government (ii) That even if there was any obligation on the part of the
AEE Society to absorb the petitioner in its school, it was unable to fulfil
such obligation since her performance in the interview before the teachers' B
Selection Committee of the AEE Society did not satisfy the requirement
of minimum marks of 50 per cent set down for the purpose.
Both the said grounds put-forth on behalf of Respondent-6, the AEE
Society, to avoid absorption of the petitioner as a teacher in its schools,
are untenable and warrant outright rejection, for the reason we propose to C
statF:, nO\V.
Ground (i), That this Court dismissed the writ petition on merits and
the dismissal of the writ petition, therefore, did not ilbligate the AEE
Society lo absorb the petitioner who was a teacher in the school handed- D
over to it, to say the least, does not speak well of the AEE Society, to which
i this Court had accorded a special status and treatment because of the ·
involvement in its management of country's scientists of repute.
It shall not be forgotten, as has been done by the AEE Society now,
that the Central Government could not transfer the RAPP School to the E
AEE Society because· of the writ petitions of the petitioner and others and
such transfer could be effected only after the main writ petition was
dismissed by this Court. We have come across some Education Societies
which are known for carrying on business in appointments of teachers and
admission of students to their schools, coming forward with untenable pleas F
for refusing to admit students or to appoint teachers, but we feel even now,
that the AEE Society should not have given the impression to this Court
by its pleas that it is attempting to wriggle out of an assurance given to this
Court on the basis of which alone this Court dismissed the main wiit
petition paving way for it to take-over the management of the school in
which the petitioner was a teacher. When this Court had to decide in,the G
writ petition as to whether the Central Government could tra9sfe'r the
RAPP School.to the AEE Society jeopardising the services of teachers and
other employees of thy RAPP School, letter dated 27th July, 1984 written
by the Joint Secretary to tb.e Government of India, has been brought to the
notice of this Court. That letter stated inter alia, that the Government of H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
·A India in the Depiptment of Atomic Energy will use their good offices with
the Atomic Energy Education society which is wbstantially financed by the
Government, 'to help find appropriate employment to the petitioners and
other teachers of the RAPP Higher Secondary School (English Medium)
and protection of their exi,ting designation, grade, pay and allowa.nces'. It
B was stated in that letter itself that the AEE Society was also requested to
open a school at the Rajasthan Atomic Project site and the letter was given,
as this Court had given time to the parties to the writ petition to arrive at
a settlement. ·
When this Court, on the basis of the said letter, dismissed the writ
C petition in the presence of counsel for all parties including that of R.espon-
dent-6, statin~ inter alia that 'the grievances of the petitioner have been
fully met by the assurance contained in the letter', Respondent-6, in our
view, cannot be permitted, having regard to its own conduct in the proceed-
ings, to take up a plea that there was no obligation on its part to absorb
D the petitioner in it' school either at Rajasthan Atomic Energy project site
or if the school is not there at present, elsewhere, in one of its schools. This
court, in all its subsequent orders to which we have adverted to earlier
has, while sought to impress upon Respondent-6 and other respondent~,
the need to fulfil their obligation of absorption of the petitioner and others
similarly situated in the schools of the AEE Society, nowhere relieved it of
E its obligation to absorb the teachers in terms of its assurance. Thus, first
ground raised by Respondent-6 against absorption of the petitioner cannot,
therefore, be sustained and calls to be rejected.
Coming now to the second ground of refusal of absorption of the
F petitioner as a teacher in the school of the AEE Society for not securing
50 per cent marks in the interview held by the Selection Committee of the
AEE Society, we feel that the same cannot be allowed to be put-forward
by Respondent-6 as a gr~und to refuse absorption as teacher in its schools,
of the petitioner who had admittedly rendered creditable service as a
teacher of the RAPP School for over 18 years. Adsorption of petitioner
G and persons similarly situated as teachers of the AEE Society Schools by
a Selection Committee as if they were recruiting them afresh, was not a
condition of the assurance of absorption of teachers of the RAPP School
contained in the letter dated 27th July, 1984 of the Joint Secretary to the
Government of India placed before this Court. Subsequently, whenever this
( H Court, has made orders as to absorption of teachers of the RAPP School
B.L MANDAWAT v. U.0.1. 587
in the AEE Society's schools, it has sought, as already pointed out, to A
impress upon the Respondents of the need to fulfil the assurance given by
them to this Court. The tenor of the orders makes it obvious that they were
never intended to enable Respondent-6 (the AEE Society) to put-forward
a plea, that the assurance was not possible of compliance on account of
teachers of the RAPP School not being given 50 per cent marks by the B
Selection Committee. We have, however, gone through the proceedings of
the Selection Committee which bad interviewed the petitioner along with
others who were seeking absorption as teachers in the schools of the AEE
Society. The sheet of bio-data of candidates called for interview on
31.10.1988 (RAPP Candidates) no doubi mentions percentage of marks
given to them but marks given to all candidates fall short of 50 per cent, C
the marks required for selection. It is difficult to comprehend how 5
Selection Committee members could give the common percentage of
marks for each candidate. Criteria, if any, which formed the basis on which
marks bad come to be allocated by the members of the Selection Commit-
tee is not indicated in the mark-sheet. Further, the requirement of mini- D
mum marks for selection as teachers bas been relaxed by the Management
of the AEE Society in case of two candidates, showing thereby that the
requirement of minimum marks was not a rigid rule of selection. While the
earlier selection was given up by the AEE Society as quite unsatisfactory,
the selection resorted to for the second time, is in no way better. The
impression created on our minds by the selection process, thought of by E
the AEE Society, is to somehow wriggle out of the assurance contained in
the letter dated 27th July, 1984 produced for getting the writ petition
dismissed and not to carry out that assurance, on which this Court acted
in dismissing the writ petition.
F
Thus, we have the least hesitation in concluding that the second
ground put-forth on behalf of Respondent-6, the AEE Society, as a ground
for refusal of absorption of the petitioner in one of its schools, is wholly
unsustainable and warrants rejection.
If we have regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the ,G
orders made by this Court from time to time in the writ petitions as well
as contempt petitioners, there could be no justification for us to entertain
the pleas put-forth as excuses by the AEE Society to wriggle out of the
assurance contained in the letter dated 27th July, 1984. Further, we are
satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of the case that the least we should H
••
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A do is, to direct the Respondents to carry out the assurance contained in
the letter dated 27th July, 1984 on the basis of which they got the writ
petition dismissed, inasmuch, such direction could make the Respondents
realise, that this Court will not hesitate to do what is necessary to meet the
ends of justice.
B Hence, we allow this application, direct Respondent-6, the AEE
Society, to absorb the petitioner as a Trained Graduate Teacher in its
school at Rajasthan Atomic Energy Project site and if there is no school
there, in any other of its schools by protecting her designation, grade, pay
and allowances retrospectively from the date of her termination as a
C Trained Graduate Teacher of the RAPP School, if unavoidable, by creating
a supernumerary post for the purpose. The Central Government, as said
in the letter containing the assurance, shall meet the expenditure needed
for absorption of the petitioner in a school of the AEE Society with
retrospective effect. Respondent-6 must, in absorbing the petitioner in its
school pay her all the benefits of the post to which she would have been
D entitled as if her services as a teacher were not terminated. The Respon-
dents are given as a last chance, two months' time form today, to comply
with these directions.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no
order as to costs on this application.
U.R. Petition allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "government assurance"Sign in to search