RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 21, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Facts
* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 21 : 2024 INSC 7
Case Details
Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Etc.
v.
State of U.P. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos.20-21 Of 2024)
03 January 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Three appellants herein were appointed as Assistant Teachers 
at the Junior High School on 25.06.1999. From October, 2005, 
abruptly their salaries were stopped. Whether the State was justified 
in abruptly stopping their salary.
Headnotes
Service Law – Recruitment – Stoppage of salary – The 
District Basic Education Officer case was that by order dated 
26.12.1997, only two additional posts of Assistant Teacher were 
created by the Joint Director of Education – It was averred that 
manipulation was made by the management in collusion with 
the appellants to show that three posts of Assistant Teacher 
were sanctioned – From October, 2005, abruptly salaries of 
appellants were stopped – Propriety:
Held: Apart from the bare allegation, absolutely no material was 
placed on record to show how the appellants, who were the 
applicants from the open market, had colluded or were blameworthy 
for any manipulation – According to the State, two posts were, in 
fact, sanctioned and it was the School that manipulated it, to make 
it three – Even according to the State, admittedly, till date there is 
no order terminating their services – In an inquiry report initiated 
pursuant to the directions of the High Court, it was found that 
the Manager of the School had
fraudulently changed the number 
of posts from two to three in the order dated 26.12.1997 and 
accordingly, an FIR was filed against the manager – There were 
no findings of collusion or blameworthiness against appellants for 
the alleged manipulation – Appellants were bona fide applicants 
from the open market – The alleged mischief, even according to 
the State, was at the end of the School and its Manager – In the 
light of the various Supreme Court decisions, it will be travesty of
22
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
justice if relief is denied to the appellants – Appellants were not at 
fault and the State could not have abruptly stopped their salaries 
– Accordingly, the State directed to pay salaries to the appellants 
for the period from 25.06.1999 till January, 2002 in full – Also, 
the State directed that insofar as the period from October, 2005 
till today is concerned, the State shall pay the appellants 50% of 
the backwages – The State also directed to allow the appellants 
to commence work. [Paras 8, 14, 16, 30, 34, 35]
List of Citations and Other References
Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B and Another vs. Suresh 
Raghunath Bhokare, (2005)10 SCC 465; Vikas Pratap 
Singh and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., 
[2013] 10 SCR 1114:(2013) 14 SCC 494; Anmol Kumar 
Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 
2021 INSC 101: (2021) 5 SCC 424;	 Dr. M.S. Mudhol 
and Another vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others, [1993] 1 
Suppl. SCR 115:(1993) 3 SCC 591; Rajesh Kumar and 
Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, [2013] 4 SCR 
753:(2013) 4 SCC 690; K. Ameer Khan and Anr. Vs. A. 
Gangadharan and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 84; Sivanandan 
C.T. and Others vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors., 
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 994 – relied on.
Sachin Kumar and Ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate 
Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Ors. [2021] 
2 SCR 1073:2021 INSC 147: 2021 (4) SCC 631 – 
distinguished.
Vivek Kaisth and Anr. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh 
and Ors., 2023 INSC
1007:2023 SCC OnLine SC 
1485 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Recruitment; Stoppage of salary; Bona fide 
applicants; Open market; Full salary payment; Backwages.
Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and 
Appearances
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.20-21 of 2024.
[From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2021 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal Nos.1435 and 1445 of 2023]
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
23
RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Appearances:
Surender Kumar Gupta, Chitvan Singhal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Krishnanand Pandeya, Dhawal Uniyal, Naresh 
Kumar, Himanshu Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
Radhey Shyam Yadav, Lal Chandra Kharwar and Ravindra Nath 
Yadav are the three appellants. On 25.06.1999, they were appointed 
as Assistant Teachers at the Junior High School, Bahorikpur, 
Maharajganj, District Jaunpur, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 
School’). From October, 2005, abruptly their salaries were stopped. 
They moved the High Court for redressal. Both the learned Single 
Judge and the Division Bench declined them relief. Aggrieved, they 
are before us in these Appeals. 
Brief facts:-
3.	
From the record, it appears that the School started as a recognized 
unaided school in 1983-1984 with one post of Head Master, four posts 
of Assistant Teacher, three posts of Peon and one post of Clerk. On 
07.10.1996, two posts of Assistant Teacher were increased, raising 
the sanctioned strength of Assistant Teacher to six. 
4.	
On 26.12.1997, the Director of Education (Basic) sanctioned certain 
additional posts of Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid School. While 
the department claims that by the order of 26.12.1997, only two 
posts of Assistant Teacher were sanctioned, the Manager/Principal 
of the School
claiming that three posts were sanctioned, went ahead 
and sought permission from the District Basic Education Officer for 
issuing advertisement. This was done by their letter of 28.01.1998. 
The letter of 26.12.1997 has been placed before us by the State in 
the form of an additional affidavit which indicates that only two posts 
were sanctioned. The State does not dispute that by the above letter 
two posts of Assistant Teacher were sanctioned. In 1998, the School 
became an aided School.
24
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
5.	
Thereafter, responding to the letter of the School, the District Basic 
Education Officer by his letter of 20.11.1998 accorded permission 
to issue advertisement for appointment of three posts of Assistant 
Teachers. On 25.11.1998, an advertisement was issued. The School, 
thereafter, on 08.12.1998, wrote a letter to the District Basic Education 
Officer to nominate a Member for the selection of the teachers. 
In response, the District Basic Education Officer nominated the 
Assistant District Basic Education Officer, Bahorikpur as a Member 
of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee duly met and 
considered the twelve applications received by it. Seven out of the 
twelve applicants, including the three appellants herein, participated 
in the interview. By its letter of 27.12.1998, the Selection Committee 
informed the District Basic Education Officer that the appellants, on 
basis of their ability, have been selected and their case was being 
submitted for approval. The order in which the Selection Committee 
has sent subject-wise names were as follows: 
i.	
Lal Chandra Kharwar – Science and Math
ii.	
Radhey Shyam Yadav – English
iii.	
Ravindra Nath Yadav – Agric & Gen.Topic
It is not disputed that by an order of 09.06.1999, the District Basic 
Education Officer granted approval for the appointment of the 
appellants. As stated earlier, they were appointed on 25.06.1999 
and were working continuously. 
6.	
The
undisputed case is that from October, 2005, their salaries were 
stopped from being disbursed, forcing them to file Writ Petitions in 
the High Court, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10286 of 2007 
and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18641 of 2008. The three appellants, 
in all, filed two writ petitions. In the writ petitions, the prayer was 
for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the 
arrears of salary from July, 1999 to January, 2002 and continue to 
pay salary from October, 2005. It was their case that from the date 
of appointment till January 2002, their salary had not been released. 
7.	
The District Basic Education Officer filed counter affidavits to the 
writ petitions. It was his case that, by order dated 26.12.1997, only 
two additional posts of Assistant Teacher were created by the Joint 
Director of Education. It was averred that manipulation was made by 
the management in collusion with the appellants to show that three 
posts of Assistant Teacher were sanctioned.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
25
RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
8.	
Apart from this bare allegation, absolutely no material was placed on 
record to show how the appellants had colluded or were blameworthy 
for any manipulation. 
9.	
Subsequent to the counter affidavit filed by the State, on 30.07.2013, 
a compliance affidavit was filed. It is averred therein that a detailed 
enquiry was conducted in the matter wherein it had transpired that 
manipulation was got done at the level of the School in question by 
overwriting the sanctioned posts of teachers of the School as “three” 
in place of “two”. 
10.	 The Learned Single Judge, by order dated 10.09.2013, held that 
if based on the forged order, proceedings were initiated for the 
selection of Assistant Teacher, then the entire selection needs to be 
cancelled. It was also held that since forgery was committed by the 
persons involved in the selection of Assistant Teachers and since 
the selection process was not fair, being based on a forged letter, 
the candidates who were selected in the selection process are not 
entitled to be appointed and retained on the post of Assistant Teacher, 
and holding so, the writ petitions were dismissed. The appellants filed 
writ appeals. By the impugned order, the appeals were dismissed 
reiterating the findings of the learned Singe Judge.
Contentions:
11.	 We have heard Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for 
the appellants and Ms. Sansriti Pathak, learned counsel for
the 
respondent-State.
12.	 Learned counsel for the appellants, after placing a comprehensive 
overview of the facts, vehemently contended that there was no fault on 
the part of the appellants and for any wrong computation of vacancy, 
the appellants ought not to be prejudiced. He further contended that 
the State admittedly does not dispute that two vacancies were, in 
fact, created and that if at all there was any manipulation, it was at 
the level of the School. In the absence of any blameworthy conduct 
attributed to the appellants, they ought not to be prejudiced after 
serving the School for very long. According to the appellants, they 
were continuously teaching till 30.03.2016 by entering their names in 
a separate register. However, according to the State, from October, 
2005 their salaries have been stopped. In support of their claim, 
learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments of this
26
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 
and Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 494 and the recent judgment in Civil Appeal 
Nos. 6233-34 of 2023 dated 20.11.2023 titled Vivek Kaisth and Anr. 
Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 2023:INSC:1007 = 
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1485.
13.	 Ms. Sansriti Pathak, learned counsel for the State vehemently 
defended the impugned judgment. She contended that where 
there was fraud, the whole selection process shall be vitiated. She 
relied on Sachin Kumar and Ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service 
Selection Board (DSSSB) and Ors. 2021:INSC:147 = 2021 (4) 
SCC 631 in support of her proposition. Learned counsel submitted 
that there was no case warranting interference under Article 136 of 
the Constitution of India. 
Discussion and Findings:
14.	 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter and 
considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the 
records. The correspondence between the School and the Directorate 
of Education culminated in the order of 26.12.1997. There is a dispute 
about the number of posts that were sanctioned. According to the 
State, two posts were, in fact, sanctioned and it was the School that 
manipulated it, to make it three. We will proceed on the basis that the 
version of the State is correct. The nominee of the State participated 
in the selection process. Twelve candidates had applied and ultimately 
three appellants were
empanelled for selection. Due approval was 
given for the appointment and admittedly they discharged their duties 
on their post from 25.06.1999 till September, 2005. Even according 
to the State, admittedly, till date there is no order terminating their 
services. What impelled the appellants to go to the High Court was 
the stoppage of their salary. 
15.	 There is not an iota of material to demonstrate how the appellants, 
who were applicants from the open market, were guilty of colluding 
in the manipulation. 
16.	 We are also reinforced on this, by the findings in the inquiry report 
initiated pursuant to the directions of the High Court in the writ 
petitions. In the Inquiry Report, the conclusion was that, it was the 
erstwhile District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and his office, in 
collusion with the Manager of the School, who had taken steps for 
appointment/approval. It was mentioned that there was involvement
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
27
RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
of Shri Ram Dular Yadav, Principal, Shri Triloki Nath Singh, Manager 
of the school, the erstwhile District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur 
and also the officials of the District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur. 
It was further found that the Manager of the School has fraudulently 
changed the number of posts from two to three in the order dated 
26.12.1997 and it was mentioned that Shri Triloki Nath Singh, the 
Manager was guilty and accordingly, District Basic Education Officer, 
Jaunpur has lodged an F.I.R. against Shri Triloki Nath Singh on 
08.07.2013.
17.	 What is important to notice is, nothing has been mentioned as to 
how the appellants, who were applicants from the open market, 
were in any way responsible. There is no reference to any material 
whatsoever that had been unearthed either in the departmental inquiry 
launched or in the criminal investigation. On a pointed query to the 
counsel for the State as to whether the appellants were arrayed as 
accused in that criminal case, she candidly replied that they were 
not. On being further asked as to whether any action has been taken 
against the School, she replied that no action has been taken. The 
School continues to function with grants-in-aid. She submitted that 
the only action taken was to file an F.I.R. against the Manager of the 
School, which F.I.R. has since resulted in a charge-sheet.
18.	 In the inquiry report, the
following crucial findings occur. They are 
extracted hereinbelow: 
“(3) Two additional posts of Assistant Teachers were 
created vide the Directorate’s letter No.Samanya(l) 
Basic/2117-20/96-97 dated 26.12.1997 (certified copy 
enclosed) as a result the number of sanctioned posts of 
Asst. Teachers in the school in question became 06 (six). 
Earlier this letter was typed for being sent to the Zonal 
Assistant Education Director (Basic), Azamgarh which 
was later on erased and ‘Varanasi’ was written with pen. 
In this letter, in column No.2, the number of sanctioned 
post is mentioned as 02 and against column No.5 the 
number of Assistant Teachers is clearly mentioned as 8. 
This file bears the signatures of Ex-Desk Assistant Shri 
Rajnarain Trivedi and Deputy Education Director (Science) 
Shri Harish Chandra Tiwari, who has since retired on the 
note side of the file there is the order of creation of two
28
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
posts dated 11.8.1997 of late Shri Vinay Kumar Pandey, 
Deputy Education Director (Basic). 
(4) In the aforesaid post creation order of the Directorate 
dated 26.12.1997, the Manager of the institute, showing 
03 (three) posts of Assistant Teachers fraudulently and 
obtained approval for appointment of 03 Assistant Teachers 
S/Shri Lal Chand Kharwar, Radhey Shyam Yadav and 
Ravinder Nath from District, Jaunpur vide letter No 
B-2/1313-14/99-2000 dated 9.6.98. 
(5) The District, Jaunpur sought permission from the 
Directorate for payment of salary of the aforesaid three 
teachers vide letter No.3909 dated 28.8.2001. With this 
letter the Directorate’s letter dated 16.12.1997, which was 
sent by the Manager duly certified by the District, Jaunpur 
was enclosed in which fraudulently 03(three) in place of 02 
(two) in column No.3, 09 (nine) in place of 08 (eight) and 
total 12 (twelve) in place of 11 (eleven) against column 
No.5 were shown. 
(6) After the verification of the said fraudulent letter dated 
26.12.1997 sent by the District, Jaunpur, vide the registered 
letter No.Arth(4)/1812/2004-05 dated 27.10.2004 and 
Letter No.Arth(4)/2310-13/2004-05 dated 19.11.2004, the 
District, Jaunpur was directed that in the post creation order 
in question the Manager of the institute had fraudulently 
mentioned three posts while in the post creation order 
dated 28.12.1997 only two posts of Assistant Teachers 
have been sanctioned. The
Directorate directed the District, 
Jaunpur to call for the explanation of the Manager and the 
Principal of the institute responsible for the same, and to 
furnish the information about the then District, Jaunpur who 
had verified the posts and the name, designation and the 
place of posting of the then Desk Assistant (photo copy 
enclosed). On the aforesaid two letters of the Directorate 
no action was taken by the then District, Jaunpur which 
prima facie shows that the erstwhile District, Jaunpur and 
his office in collusion with the Manager of the school, had 
taken steps for appointment/approval in the school in which 
the involvement of Shri Ram Dular Yadav, Principal, Shri 
Triloki Nath Singh, Manager of the institute, the erstwhile
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
29
RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
District, Jaunpur and the officials of the office of District, 
Jaunpur, is clearly visible. 
xxx  xxx 
(c) The erstwhile District, Jaunpur/erstwhile Finance and 
Accounts Officer, Basic Education Office, Jaunpur and the 
Desk Assistant are prima facie guilty in granting permission 
for advertisement selection, approval and taking steps for 
disbursement of salary on the basis of the forged letter 
of creation of posts dated 26.12.1997 of the Manager of 
the institute and in this respect the Education Director 
(Basic) should submit proposal to the Government to 
initiate disciplinary action against them. In addition take 
action against the concerned Desk Assistants at his level.”
There was absolutely nothing found against the three appellants. 
However, the following recommendations were made:-
“(d) The appointments of S/Shri Lala Chand Kharwar, 
Radhey Shyam Yadav and Ravindra Nath Yadav, made 
pursuant to the said forged letter dated 26.12.1997 are 
illegal. They have been paid for the period February, 2002 
to October, 2005, the salary is illegal. The same be counted 
and action for proportionate recovery be taken against the 
guilty erstwhile District/erstwhile Finance and Accounts 
Officer, Basic Education and the concerned Desk Officer 
by the Director of Education (Basic) as per the settled 
procedure and steps taken to terminate the services of 
illegally appointed Assistant Teachers S/Shri
Lala Chand 
Kharwar, Radhey Shyam Yadav and Ravindra Nath Yadav.” 
19.	 In the inquiry, the appellants were not given any opportunity. Even 
in the inquiry held behind the back of the appellants, there were 
no findings of collusion or blameworthiness against them for the 
alleged manipulation. Even as on date, the appointment order dated 
25.06.1999 and the approval order of 09.06.1999 have not been 
revoked. With no finding of guilt against the appellants and with no 
material against them, their salaries had been stopped and they have 
been prevented to sign on the regular attendance register, admittedly 
from October, 2005. The contention of the appellants is that they 
continued with their teaching work up till 30.03.2016 entering their 
names on a separate attendance register.
30
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
20.	 We may also note the fact that in the F.I.R. lodged by the State on 
17.07.2015 also, there is no allegation against the appellants or any 
other applicants and only two persons were named in that F.I.R. 
They were Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi, Senior Assistant and Rajendra 
Prasad Yadav, Senior Assistant. Both were employees in the office 
of the District Basic Education Officer. The allegation was that the 
documents related to approval of appointments/teacher listings from 
the concerned schools were missing and that the said two officers 
were responsible for maintaining the records. 
21.	 In this background, the question that really falls for consideration is, 
was the State justified in abruptly and without anything more, stopping 
the salary? We are constrained to answer the question in negative.
22.	 Assuming the case of the State to be true and taking it at its highest, 
the factual position would come to this, namely, that while the State 
sanctioned two vacancies, the school went ahead and recruited 
three. The State has no proof of commission of any malpractice 
by the appellants. The State approved their appointments, and the 
approval order till date has not been cancelled. The appointments 
have not been terminated. No action has been taken against the 
school and the school continues to receive the aid.
23.	 Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and Another vs. Suresh Raghunath 
Bhokare, (2005) 10 SCC 465 is a case which,
on facts, has a striking 
resemblance to the case at hand. The respondent therein had been 
recommended by the department and was selected as line-helper 
in the appellant-Board. On the ground that the recommendation 
was allegedly made fraudulently, the respondent was dismissed 
from service. The complaint preferred by the respondent had been 
dismissed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court reversing 
the findings of the Labour Court, quashed the termination of the 
respondent therein and directed reinstatement. Writ Petition filed 
by the appellant therein was dismissed by the High Court. This 
Court, while observing that in the absence of any overt act being 
attributed to the respondent, held that it could not be inferred that 
the respondent had a role in sending fraudulent list, solely on the 
basis of the presumption that he got the job. Para 5 of the judgment 
which is crucial for the decision of the present case is extracted 
herein below:-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
31
RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
“5.  The entire basis of the dismissal of the appellant 
depends upon the factum of the alleged misrepresentation 
attributed to the respondent. The Industrial Court in its 
impugned order has noticed the fact that the respondent 
was appointed in April 1994 pursuant to the selection 
procedure followed by the competent authority and that 
he was selected by the panel of Selection Committee 
consisting of 6 members which included the very same 
Social Welfare Officer who had sent the proposal including 
the name of the respondent for appointment. It also noticed 
the fact that the selection in question was made after an 
oral interview and the required test as also the medical 
examination. The Industrial Court also noticed the fact that 
the appointment of the respondent was confirmed after 
one-year period and thereafter the respondent has been 
working without any complaint. The said Industrial Court 
also noticed the fact that the termination of the respondent 
was based on a show-cause notice issued on 5-7-1999 
which was replied to by the respondent on 17-7-1999 
and the termination was made in a summary procedure 
permissible under Rule 90(b) of the Service Regulations. 
The Industrial Court after perusing the pleadings and the 
notice issued to the respondent came to the conclusion 
that the alleged misrepresentation which is now said to 
be a fraud was not specifically pleaded or proved. In
the 
show-cause notice, no basis was laid to show what is the 
nature of fraud that was being attributed to the appellant. 
No particulars of the alleged fraud were given and the said 
pleadings did not even contain any allegation as to how 
the appellant was responsible for sending the so-called 
fraudulent proposal or what role he had to play in such 
proposal being sent. It also noticed from the evidence of Mr 
Waghmare, Social Welfare Officer who sent the proposal 
before the Labour Court that he did not utter a single word 
as to whether the said supplementary list was ever called 
for by the department concerned or not. Thus applying the 
basic principle of rule of evidence which requires a party 
alleging fraud to give particulars of the fraud and having 
found no such particulars, the Industrial Court came to the 
conclusion that the respondent could not be held guilty of
32
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fraud. The said finding of the Industrial Court has been 
accepted by the High Court. Mr. Bhasme though contended 
that the fraud in question was played in collusion with the 
Social Welfare Officer and 2 other employees of the Board 
and action against the said 2 employees of the Board has 
been taken, but by that itself we are unable to accept the 
argument of Mr. Bhasme that there is material to support 
the contention of the Board that the appellant had also 
contributed to making the misrepresentation at the time of 
applying for the job with the Board. In the absence of any 
such particulars being mentioned in the show-cause notice 
or at the trial, attributing some overt act to the respondent, 
we do not think the Board can infer that the respondent 
had a role to play in sending a fraudulent list solely on the 
basis of the presumption that since the respondent got a 
job by the said proposal, the said list is a fraudulent one. 
It was the duty of the Board to have specifically produced 
the material to prove that the respondent himself had the 
knowledge of such a fraud and he knowingly or in collusion 
with other officials indulged in this fraud. Since there is no 
such material on record, on the facts of the instant case, 
the Industrial Court and the High Court have come to 
the right conclusion that the alleged fraud has not been 
established by the appellants, hence, this is not a fit case 
in which interference
is called for. This appeal, therefore, 
fails and the same is dismissed.”
(emphasis supplied)
24.	 In Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), this Court, while protecting the 
selection of the appellants, had the following to say:-
“27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by 
the respondent board in the matter of evaluation of the 
answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants 
as they have neither been found to have committed any 
fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the 
first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous 
model answer key or the specious result contributed to 
them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have 
justified their ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
33
RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of 
their length of service.” 
25.	 Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) was followed in Anmol Kumar Tiwari 
and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2021:INSC:101 = 
(2021) 5 SCC 424. This Court, in para 11, held as follows:-
“11. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates 
to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court 
to reinstate the writ petitioners. The High Court directed 
reinstatement of the writ petitioners after taking into account 
the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that 
was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High 
Court found that the writ petitioners were not responsible 
for the irregularities committed by the authorities in 
preparation of the select list. Moreover, the writ petitioners 
were appointed after completion of training and worked 
for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the 
writ petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement 
without affecting the rights of other candidates who were 
already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap 
Singh case [Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 
(2013) 14 SCC 494 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 100], where 
this Court considered that the appellants therein were 
appointed due to an error committed by the respondents in 
the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no 
allegation of fraud or
misrepresentation committed by the 
appellants therein, the termination of their services was set 
aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the 
appellants therein had successfully undergone training and 
were serving the State for more than 3 years was another 
reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the 
orders passed by the High Court. As the writ petitioners 
are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap 
Singh case [Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 
(2013) 14 SCC 494 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 100], we are 
in agreement with the High Court that the writ petitioners 
are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain 
of contempt, the writ petitioners have been reinstated and 
are working at present.”
(emphasis supplied)
34
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
26.	 To the same effect is the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Dr. 
M.S. Mudhol and Another vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others, (1993) 
3 SCC 591 wherein, in para 6, it was observed as under:-
“6. Since we find that it was the default on the part of the 
2nd respondent, Director of Education in illegally approving 
the appointment of the first respondent in 1981 although 
he did not have the requisite academic qualifications 
as a result of which the 1st respondent has continued 
to hold the said post for the last 12 years now, it would 
be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at this 
late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his 
selection was made. There is nothing on record to show 
that he had at that time projected his qualifications other 
than what he possessed. If, therefore, in spite of placing 
all his cards before the selection committee, the selection 
committee for some reason or the other had thought it 
fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent 
had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be 
inequitous to make him suffer for the same now. Illegality, 
if any, was committed by the selection committee and the 
2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same.”
27.	 In Rajesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2013) 
4 SCC 690, this Court finding the appellants to be innocent parties 
ruled that even if in the re-evaluation the appellants do not
make 
the grade, still the appellants appointments ought to be protected. 
Para 21 & 22.3 are extracted herein below:-
“21.  There is considerable merit in the submission of 
Mr Rao. It goes without saying that the appellants were 
innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed 
to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted 
result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice 
against the appellants who have served the State for 
nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter 
se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the 
ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable 
consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation 
process may additionally benefit those who have lost 
the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
35
RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those 
candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to 
issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit 
shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their 
appointments on that basis according to their inter se 
position on the merit list.
22.3. In case the writ petitioners, Respondents 6 to 18 
also figure in the merit list after re-evaluation of the answer 
scripts, their appointments shall relate back to the date 
when the appellants were first appointed with continuity 
of service to them for purpose of seniority but without any 
back wages or other incidental benefits.”
28.	 In K. Ameer Khan and Anr. Vs. A. Gangadharan and Ors., (2001) 
9 SCC 84, a case involving the wrong computation of vacancies, 
while protecting the promotion of the appellants, this Court had the 
following to say:-
“2. .....The appellants have been selected quite some 
time back and the first appellant has been promoted to 
a higher grade. The appellants were not responsible for 
the wrong computation of vacancies done by the second 
respondent. After the empanelment and appointment of 
the appellants, it is brought to our notice that there have 
been fresh promotions to the post of Assistant Controller 
of Stores at least on two occasions in June 1995 and May 
1997. In a new selection, five Scheduled Caste candidates 
and four Scheduled Tribe
candidates have been selected. 
The appellants could not participate in the same as they 
had already been promoted to the higher grade. Now, 
when the appellants have been working in the higher grade 
from 1994 onwards, it would not be equitable to disturb 
their promotions…….”
29.	 More recently, this Court in Vivek Kaisth (supra), following the 
judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sivanandan C.T. and Others 
vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 994 
protected the appointments of the appellants even after finding that 
their appointments were in excess of the advertised vacancies. This 
Court held as under:-
36
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
“32. … …. Today, when we are delivering this judgment the 
two appellants have already served as Judicial Officers for 
nearly 10 years. Meanwhile, they have also been promoted 
to the next higher post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). In 
this process of their selection and appointment (which has 
obviously benefitted them), nothing has been brought to 
our notice which may suggest any favouritism, nepotism or 
so-called blame as to the conduct of these two appellants, 
in securing these appointments. The High Court in fact 
notes this factor. While placing the blame on the State 
Commission it records that “………. there is nothing on 
record suggestive of the fact that any mala fides were 
behind the selection of respondents Nos.4 and 6……….”
“34. The appellants were not entitled for any equitable relief 
in view of the High Court as they were the beneficiaries 
of an illegality committed by the Selection/appointing 
authority. But then it failed to take this question further, 
which in our opinion, it ought to have done. What the High 
Court never answered was as to how much of this blame 
of “illegal” selection and appointment would rest on the 
High Court (on its administrative side). Undoubtedly, with 
all intentions of timely filling of the vacancies, the High 
Court still cannot escape the blame…..”
“36. What is also important for our consideration at this 
stage is that the appellants in the present case have 
been
working as Judicial Officers now for nearly 10 years. 
They are now Civil Judge (Senior Division). These judicial 
officers now have a rich experience of 10 years of judicial 
service behind them. Therefore, unseating the present 
appellants from their posts would not be in public interest. 
Ordinarily, these factors as we have referred above, would 
not matter, once the very appointment is held to be wrong. 
But we also cannot fail to consider that the appellants were 
appointed from the list of candidates who had successfully 
passed the written examination and viva voce and they 
were in the merit list. Secondly, it is nobody’s case that 
the appellants have been appointed by way of favouritism, 
nepotism or due to any act which can even remotely be 
called as “blameworthy”. Finally, they have now been
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
37
RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
working as judges for ten years. There is hence a special 
equity which leans in favour of the appellants. In a recent 
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Sivanandan 
C.T. and Ors. v. High Court of Kerala and Ors. (2023) 
SCC OnLine SC 994 though the finding arrived at by this 
Court was that the Rules of the game were changed by 
the High Court of Kerala by prescribing minimum marks 
for the viva voce, which were not existing in the Rules 
and therefore in essence the appointment itself was in 
violation of the Rules, yet considering that those persons 
who had secured appointments under this selection have 
now been working for more than 6 years it was held that 
it would not be in public interest to unseat them.”
(emphasis supplied)
30.	 The situation of the appellants in the present case is no different 
from the individuals whose appointments were protected in the cases 
cited hereinabove. They had no blameworthy conduct. They were 
bona fide applicants from the open market. The alleged mischief, 
even according to the State, was at the end of the School and its 
Manager. It will be a travesty of justice if relief is denied to the 
appellants. Enormous prejudice would also occur to them. 
31.	 Ms. Sansriti Pathak, learned counsel, who ably defended the case for 
the State, made a valiant attempt to draw support from the judgment 
in Sachin Kumar (supra). In that case, what was in issue
was the 
validity of the cancellation of the selection process for recruitment 
to the 231 vacancies in the post of Grade 2 (DASS) (Head Clerk). 
This Court, while reversing the judgment of the Tribunal and the 
High Court held that in that case there was a basic denial of access 
to Tier I examination. The Court further held that the nature of the 
allegations was found substantiated upon the careful examination by 
the first Committee whose report showed that the credibility of the 
process itself had been eroded. In that case, the total vacancies for 
which recruitment was to be made was 231 and 61,179 candidates 
were found to be eligible. The first Committee which enquired 
found that there were serious irregularities including cheating and 
impersonation in the course of both Tier 1 Screening examination 
and Tier 2 Main examination. The Secretary (Vigilance) had also 
pointed out in his opinion there was a huge difference between the
38
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
number of applications received, namely, 62056 and the number of 
candidates who had appeared in the Tier 1 examination i.e. 8224, 
indicating thereby that proper information regarding the exam was not 
given to the candidates. The second Committee had observed that no 
irregularity was found in the documents of the 281 candidates. The 
Tribunal holding that 281 candidates were free from blame, set aside 
the order cancelling selection process, clarifying that the appointments 
to be offered would be subject to the ACB investigation. The High 
Court had held that the scope of the order of the Tribunal should 
be confined to the six applicants who have moved the Tribunal. The 
High Court had also held that it was possible to determine that at 
least in respect of 281candidates there was no evidence of use of 
unfair means and that it was a case where separation of the tainted 
from the untainted was possible. 
32.	 Reversing the judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court, this Court 
held that the irregularities were not confined to acts of malpractice 
or unfair means on the part of specific group of persons and that 
the report of the Committee found deficiencies of a systemic nature 
which cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the entire process of 
recruitment. This Court held that in such a situation where a decision 
is taken by the government to cancel the entire process, the decision 
cannot be held to be
irrational or arbitrary.
33.	 This judgment in Sachin Kumar (supra) is clearly distinguishable 
from the case at hand. First of all, Sachin Kumar (supra) involved 
the cancellation of the selection process before any appointments 
were made. No rights were crystallized to any of the candidates. 
The issue was about the validity of the cancellation of the selection 
process. Sachin Kumar (supra) falls in that genre of cases 
concerning validity of cancellation of the selection process due to 
largescale irregularities. The Case at hand is proximate to the facts 
and ratio in Suresh Raghunath Bhokare (supra) and cases of that 
ilk set out hereinabove. 
34.	 We feel that the appellants were not at fault and the State could not 
have abruptly stopped their salaries. Accordingly, we set aside the 
judgments of the High Court dated 15.09.2021 in Special Appeal Nos. 
1435/2013 and 1445/2013 and direct that the State shall pay the 
salaries of the appellants for the period from 25.06.1999 till January, 
2002 in full. We also direct that insofar as the period from October,
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
39
RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
2005 till today is concerned, the State shall pay the appellants 50% 
of the backwages. Since the appointment order and the approval 
order are still in force, we declare that the appellants have always 
been and are deemed to be in service. Apart from 50% backwages, 
as ordered above, we direct that all consequential benefits, including 
seniority, notional promotion, if any, and fitment of salary and other 
service benefits due, be granted to the appellants. We direct the 
State to comply with these directions within four weeks from today. 
We also direct that the appellants be allowed to commence work 
within the said period of four weeks. 
35.	 We notice from the record that the Committee of Management, 
Junior High School, Bahorikpur was arrayed as fifth respondent 
in the writ petition before the High Court. They are also arrayed 
as fifth respondent before us in these appeals. Before us, even 
though notice has been served on the Committee of Management, 
Junior High School, Bahorikpur, nobody has entered appearance. It 
appears that even before the learned Single Judge and the Division 
Bench, the Committee of Management did not appear. We grant 
liberty to the State to issue a show-cause notice to the Committee 
of Management (R-5), after setting out clearly the charge pertaining 
to the alleged manipulation of the sanction order and altering of 
the figure from two to three. After receiving
reply, if any, and after 
holding an inquiry with an opportunity of personal hearing, the State 
will be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. In the event of the 
Committee of Management being exonerated, no further question 
will arise. In the event of them being found guilty of the charge, in 
view of any finding that may be arrived that the manipulation prior to 
the recruitment was done at the level of the employees of the school 
(whether by themselves or in collusion with the officials), we grant 
liberty to the State to recover from the Committee of Management 
one-third of the arrears, as ordered to be paid, hereinabove. This 
direction will serve the ends of justice in the matter.
36.	 The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. 
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.