Administrative Lapses Cannot Justify Retrospective Cancellation of Appointment and Salary Recovery – Supreme Court Restores Service, Denies Back Wages

“Appellant Cannot Be Penalised for State’s Mistake…Authorities must bear the consequences of their own errors” – Supreme Court of India in a judgment delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, allowed an appeal filed by Rajesh Kumar against the State of Jharkhand, setting aside orders that had cancelled his appointment as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) and directed recovery of one year’s salary.

Despite noting that the appellant was technically ineligible under the 25% reservation for Government Elementary School teachers, the Court held that he had been validly selected, appointed, and allowed to serve on the basis of approvals from competent authorities, and could not be penalised for the administrative lapses of the State.

This civil appeal emerged from a service dispute involving cancellation of appointment and recovery of salary nearly a year after the appellant, Rajesh Kumar, was appointed to a TGT post under the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) selection process. The Court held that errors committed by public authorities in the recruitment process cannot be used to undo the settled rights of an employee, especially when no fraud or misrepresentation was attributable to the candidate.

While allowing the appeal, the Court directed reinstatement with continuity in service but without back wages, citing “peculiar facts and equities” and clarifying that the judgment shall not be treated as a precedent.

The appellant, Rajesh Kumar, had been working since 2008 in St. Teresa Girls Middle School, Dumka, a 100% government-aided minority institution. In response to a recruitment advertisement issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) for TGT posts in Government Secondary Schools, he applied under the 25% reservation quota meant for teachers of Government Elementary Schools with five years of experience.

Although technically employed in an aided minority school, he was granted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka and was recommended for appointment by the District Education Establishment Committee. Upon successful selection, he was issued an appointment letter on 24 October 2019, and he joined on 26 October 2019.

However, after nearly one year of service, his appointment was cancelled on 7 September 2020, and a subsequent recovery order dated 12 September 2020 was issued for the entire salary paid during that period.

After successive failures before the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The Court identified the central legal question as whether a public employee, duly selected and appointed based on approvals from State authorities, could be later removed and penalised for being retrospectively found technically ineligible, particularly without any fault or fraud on his part.

On Eligibility Under Reserved Quota

The Court acknowledged that: “Strictly speaking, the appellant was not eligible to be considered under the 25% quota for Government Elementary School teachers” [Para 22].

However, the appellant’s case was not one of misrepresentation or fraud. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, the District Education Establishment Committee, and the District Superintendent of Education had expressly approved his candidature and appointment, even issuing an official NOC.

“The appellant cannot be penalised for the mistakes committed by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission or the District Education Establishment Committee” [Para 25].

On Administrative Justice and Natural Justice

The bench emphasized that the State, having granted an appointment after official due process, cannot later arbitrarily revoke the same and recover salary paid during the service period. The order of cancellation and salary recovery were termed arbitrary and unsustainable.

“Acting on the order dated 24th October, 2019, he has left his earlier job... The appellant cannot be penalised” [Para 24].

The Court’s ruling reflects core principles of administrative law – that natural justice demands employees not be punished for the State’s own procedural errors, especially when they act in good faith on official decisions.

Reinstatement Without Back Wages

While allowing the appeal, the Court sought to balance equities, ruling:

“The appellant shall be reinstated forthwith with continuity in service for all purposes, including terminal benefits, but shall not be entitled to back wages for the period during which he remained out of employment” [Paras 29–30].

This partial relief was granted not as a blanket rule, but due to the unique and peculiar circumstances of the case. The Court categorically stated:

“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” [Para 32].

In this decision, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed a critical facet of service jurisprudence — employees cannot be punished for faults of the State machinery, especially in the absence of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation. While technical ineligibility may exist, once a candidate is selected, appointed, and serves for a considerable time, retrospective cancellations and salary recoveries without due process or equitable considerations offend constitutional fairness.

The decision underscores the State's duty to act fairly and to own its errors, rather than shifting the burden to ordinary citizens, particularly in public employment matters.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2025