The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on September 16, 2025, has ordered the reinstatement of a teacher whose appointment was terminated after he was found to be technically ineligible for a reserved quota. A bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran quashed the termination and salary recovery orders, holding that the appellant could not be penalized for mistakes made by the state’s selection and education authorities. The court, however, clarified that the order was passed in the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an advertisement by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Government Secondary Schools. The advertisement reserved 25 per cent of the posts for teachers working in “Government Primary Schools” of Jharkhand with a minimum of five years’ experience.
The appellant, Rajesh Kumar, was at the time employed at St. Teresa Girls Middle School in Dumka, a minority school that was fully (100 per cent) government-aided. Believing he was eligible for the 25 per cent quota, Mr. Kumar applied for the post. His application was supported by a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Office of the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka.
Mr. Kumar was successful in the selection process and was recommended for appointment. When the appointment letter was not immediately issued, he filed a writ petition (W.P.(S) No. 897 of 2019) before the High Court of Jharkhand. During the pendency of this petition, the District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka, in a meeting on October 19, 2019, found him eligible and directed that an appointment letter be issued.
Consequently, Mr. Kumar was appointed on October 24, 2019, and joined his post as a TGT on October 26, 2019. His writ petition was accordingly disposed of as infructuous. However, nearly a year later, on September 7, 2020, his services were terminated. A subsequent order on September 12, 2020, sought the recovery of the salary he had drawn during his service.
Aggrieved by these orders, Mr. Kumar approached the Jharkhand High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on April 19, 2023. A subsequent Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on May 14, 2024, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Adarsh Kumar Tiwari argued that Mr. Kumar, working in a 100 per cent Government-Aided Minority School, was eligible for the quota. He submitted that his client possessed the requisite experience and qualifications.
Representing the State of Jharkhand, Advocate Sudhir Bisla vehemently opposed the appeal. He contended that the quota was exclusively reserved for teachers in “Government Elementary Schools” and that a Government-Aided Minority School could not be equated with a Government Elementary School. He argued that the High Court’s concurrent findings warranted no interference.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court bench began its analysis by acknowledging the State’s position, stating, “We find substance in the stand taken by the respondent-State.” The judgment noted that a perusal of the advertisement “would clearly reveal that 25 per cent quota was reserved for the teachers working in the Government Elementary Schools having the experience of five years.” The Court concluded, “As such, strictly speaking, the appellant was not eligible to be considered for the said post.”
Despite this finding, the Court highlighted the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case. It pointed out that multiple state bodies had deemed the appellant eligible. The judgment states: “However, in the present case, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has not only found the appellant eligible but also the District Education Establishment Committee, after finding him eligible for the said post in its meeting dated 19th October, 2019, directed to issue the appointment letter to the appellant.”
The Court observed that the appellant was caught in a difficult situation through no fault of his own. “The appellant cannot be penalized for the mistakes committed by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission or the District Education Establishment Committee, Dumka,” the bench remarked. It further noted the appellant’s predicament: “Acting on the order dated 24th October, 2019, he has left his earlier job and now has also been terminated from service in the Government Secondary School.”
Final Decision
Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Office Order dated September 7, 2020, cancelling the appellant’s appointment, and the Office Order dated September 12, 2020, directing the recovery of his salary, were quashed and set aside.
The Court directed that the “appellant shall be reinstated in the Government School forthwith.” It was ordered that he be granted continuity in service for all purposes, including terminal benefits. However, the Court specified that “the appellant shall not be entitled to back wages for the period during which he remained out of employment.”
The state has been directed to comply with the order on or before October 1, 2025. In its concluding remarks, the bench issued a significant clarification: “We further clarify that we are passing the aforesaid order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and it shall not be treated as precedent in any other matter.”
