Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Once the appointment has been declared illegal and void ab initio, a person cannot legally continue in service MANU/SC/0913/2023 - (22 Aug 2023) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Dulu Deka Vs. State of Assam and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The writ petition was filed by the Appellant in the High Court in the year 2008 praying for release of her salary from 12th March, 2001 onwards. It was claimed that, she was rendering service as an Assistant Teacher in Bengabari M.E. School and had not been paid any salary. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. The order was upheld in an intra-court appeal. 
It is nowhere stated in the Appellant's appointment letter that the said appointment was in pursuance of any advertisement issued or the candidates had undergone any selection process for the same. In fact, all the appointments made by the District Elementary Education Officer, Darrang, Mangaldoi, from 08.03.2001 to 31.03.2002 were declared to be illegal and void ab initio by the Director of Elementary Education vide order. The appointment of the Appellant was also included therein. 
Once the appointment of the Appellant had been declared illegal and void ab initio, and was cancelled by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam vide order dated 18th October, 2001, the Appellant could not legally continue in service thereafter, unless that cancellation order was set aside. It has been noticed by the High Court that the order dated 18th October, 2001 was never challenged by the Appellant. Thus, the Appellant had no legal right to continue in service, especially when there is no order or letter placed on record by the Appellant that she was allowed to continue beyond 31st March, 2002. No claim for payment of salary could be made for any period. Even otherwise, it is difficult to believe that a person has been working for two decades without any salary. Even the writ petition was filed by her in the High Court in the year 2008, claiming salary from 12th March, 2001 onwards i.e., seven years later. There is no reason to differ with concurrent findings of facts recorded by the High Court. Appeal dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Appointment, Salary, Payment</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>