Site icon Legal Vidhiya

Dulu Deka Vs. State of Assam and Ors.

Admin
Spread the love
CITATION2023 INSC 752
DATE OF JUDGMENTAugust 22, 2023
COURTSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANTSmt. Duludeka 
RESPONDENTThe State of Assam & Ors.  
BENCHHon’Ble Ms. Kohli, Rajesh Bindal
PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED An individual does not have the legal right to remain in their position once their appointment is declared unlawful and void ab initio.

INTRODUCTION

In the landmark case of Smt. Dulu Deka v. The State of Assam & Ors., (2023) INSC 752, the Supreme Court of India unequivocally upheld the principle that an individual’s continued employment becomes unlawful once their appointment is declared null and void from the very beginning, a legal concept known as “void ab initio.” This ruling stands as a stark reminder that the legality of employment hinges upon the validity of the appointment process.

The case revolved around the appointment of Smt. Dulu Deka as an Assistant Teacher in a school located in Assam. Upon scrutiny, her appointment was deemed illegal and void ab initio by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. Despite this declaration, Ms. Deka persisted in her position and sought payment of her salary for the period she served.

The Supreme Court, in its considered judgment, firmly established that Ms. Deka’s continued employment in the face of an invalid appointment rendered her position untenable. The Court emphasized that once an appointment is declared void ab initio, it is retroactively nullified, rendering it as if it never existed. Consequently, any individual holding such an appointment loses their legal right to continue in the position.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of Ms. Deka’s salary claim. It asserted that the right to receive salary is solely reserved for those lawfully employed. Since Ms. Deka’s appointment was deemed illegal, she was not entitled to any salary for the period she worked after the declaration of invalidity.

This case serves as a crucial precedent for both employers and employees. Employers are cautioned that they are not obligated to pay salaries to individuals whose appointments are deemed illegal, while employees are reminded that their continued employment may be jeopardized if their appointments are invalidated.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision in Smt. Dulu Deka v. The State of Assam & Ors., (2023) INSC 752 upholds the sanctity of legal appointments and reinforces the principle that employment is only valid when it originates from a lawful process. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. In 2008, the appellant, Smt. Dulu Deka, filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court seeking release of her salary from 12.03.2001 onwards.
  2. She claimed that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Bengabari M.E. School but had not been paid any salary.
  3. She had been working in the school since 12.03.2001, when she was appointed by the District Elementary Education Officer, Mangaldoi, Darrang. 
  4. Her appointment was made against a vacancy in the Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency.
  5. Her appointment was declared illegal and void ab initio by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, on 18.10.2001.
  6. The appellant continued to work in the school even after her appointment was declared illegal.
  7. The appellant sought payment of her salary for the period from 12.03.2001 to 18.10.2001.

ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether the appellant’s appointment as an Assistant Teacher was legal?
  2. Whether the appellant was entitled to payment of salary for the period from 12.03.2001 to 18.10.2001?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

  1. The appellant, Smt. Dulu Deka, asserted that her appointment as an Assistant Teacher was valid and lawful. She argued that she was duly selected through the established selection process and her appointment was officially approved by the competent authority, the District Elementary Education Officer, Mangaldoi, Darrang.
  2.  Ms. Deka maintained that she was not responsible for the error of appointing her to a non-existent vacancy. She contended that she had fulfilled all the required criteria and followed the prescribed procedures to secure the position. Any discrepancy in the availability of vacancies should not be held against her, she argued. 
  3.  Ms. Deka emphasized that she had diligently performed her duties as an Assistant Teacher from the date of her appointment, 12.03.2001, until her appointment was declared invalid on 18.10.2001. Therefore, she claimed that she was entitled to payment of salary for the entire period of her service, regardless of the subsequent declaration of invalidity.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

  1. The respondent, the State of Assam, contended that Ms. Deka’s appointment was inherently illegal and void ab initio due to the non-existence of a vacancy in the Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency. According to the applicable rules, an appointment could only be made against a sanctioned vacancy, and Ms. Deka’s appointment violated this fundamental principle.
  2. The respondent maintained that the declaration of Ms. Deka’s appointment as void ab initio rendered her employment unlawful from the very beginning. Consequently, she was not entitled to any salary or other benefits for the period of her service.
  3. The respondent emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to the established rules and regulations governing appointments in the education sector. The purpose of these rules was to ensure transparency and fairness in the recruitment process and maintain the integrity of the education system. Any deviation from these rules, as in Ms. Deka’s case, could lead to irregularities and undermine the system’s credibility.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India held that the appellant was not entitled to payment of salary for the period from 12.03.2001 to 18.10.2001. “The appellant had no legal right to continue working, particularly considering that she had not submitted any document or order granting her permission to do so to the authorities. 

The case centered on the appointment of Smt. Dulu Deka as an Assistant Teacher in a school in Assam. However, her appointment was subsequently declared illegal and void ab initio by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. Despite this declaration, Ms. Deka continued to work in the position and sought payment of her salary for the period she served.

The Supreme Court, in its considered judgment, firmly established that Ms. Deka’s continued employment rendered her position untenable. The Court emphasized that once an appointment is declared void ab initio, it is retroactively nullified, rendering it as if it never existed. Consequently, any individual holding such an appointment loses their legal right to continue in the position.

Addressing the issue of Ms. Deka’s salary claim, the Court asserted that the right to receive salary is solely reserved for those lawfully employed. Since Ms. Deka’s appointment was deemed illegal, she was not entitled to any salary for the period she worked after the declaration of invalidity.

This case serves as a crucial precedent for both employers and employees. Employers are cautioned that they are not obligated to pay salaries to individuals whose appointments are deemed illegal, while employees are reminded that their continued employment may be jeopardized if their appointments are invalidated.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision in Smt. Dulu Deka v. The State of Assam & Ors., (2023) INSC 752, stands as a beacon of legal clarity, emphasizing the sanctity of valid appointments and the consequences of invalid appointments. The ruling serves as a reminder to both employers and employees to adhere to legal procedures, verify appointment validity, and safeguard their respective rights and interests.  The case’s implications extend beyond the specific facts of the case, influencing the broader employment landscape and promoting a system based on legality, fairness, and integrity.

REFERENCES

  1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199705005/#:~:text=2001%20onwards.,by%20GEETA%20AHUJA%20Date%3A%202023.08 
  2. https://lawbeat.in/supreme-court-judgments/no-legal-right-continue-service-once-appointment-declared-void-supreme-court
  3. https://factly.in/review-supreme-court-rules-that-when-employers-question-is-vague-appointment-cant-be-denied-stating-suppression-of-facts/amp/
  4. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49558607dba348f01230f/amp
  5. https://legalvidhiya.com/smt-dulu-deka-v-the-state-of-assam-ors-2023-insc-752/
  6. https://www.livelaw.in/amp/supreme-court/supreme-court-ruling-illegal-appointment-unpaid-salary-claim-dulu-deka-v-state-of-assam-236032
  7. https://updates.manupatra.com/roundup/contentsummary.aspx?iid=43760&text=
  8. https://www.myjudix.com/post/brief-analysis-of-the-case-of-smt-dulu-deka-vs-state-of-assam-ors-26-8-23
  9. https://www.verdictum.in/amp/top-stories/weekly-overview-supreme-court-judgments-august-month-1491905

This Article is written by Abraham Mutazu, law student at Lovely Professional University ; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version