Scribd
Upload
88 views3 pages

'Dulu Deka Vs The State of Assam' With You

The document summarizes a Supreme Court case where a woman claimed unpaid salary for work as a teacher. The Court ruled her initial appointment was invalid and once declared void, she had no legal right to continue in the role or claim salary. Key facts were her 2001 appointment, order declaring it invalid, and her failing to contest the cancellation order.

Uploaded by

jantkhan216
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
88 views3 pages

'Dulu Deka Vs The State of Assam' With You

The document summarizes a Supreme Court case where a woman claimed unpaid salary for work as a teacher. The Court ruled her initial appointment was invalid and once declared void, she had no legal right to continue in the role or claim salary. Key facts were her 2001 appointment, order declaring it invalid, and her failing to contest the cancellation order.

Uploaded by

jantkhan216
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Smt. DULU DEKA VS. THE STATE OFASSAM & ORS.

(2023) SC 752

Citation 2023INSC752
Date of Judgment 22. August. 2023
Court The Supreme Court of India
Appellant Smt. Duludeka
Respondent The state of Assam &ors.
Bench Hon’Ble Ms. Kohli, Rajesh Bindal
Referred “ No legal right to contiuue service
once appointment declared void ’’

FACTS OF THE CASE

• On December 28, 1996, the Director of Elementary Education in Assam published an


advertisement to fill 7,500 Assistant Teacher vacancies in M.E./M.V. Schools.According
to the appellant, she applied for the job and showed up for the interview in July 1997.
Because the Assam government banned the appointments, the Director of Elementary
Education in Assam failed to publish the selection list.
• After the lifting of the ban, the appellant's name, along with those of other candidates, was
recommended by the Udalguri sub-division selection committee for appointment to fill
vacancies in Dalgaon, Majbat, and Udalguri Legislative Assembly constituencies. The
appellant's name was listed next to the open positions in the Constituency of the Udalguri
Legislative Assembly.
• The appellant was appointed under the Central Government-sponsored Operation Black
Board Scheme as an assistant teacher at Bengabari M.E. /M.V. /M.E.M. School by order
dated 12.03.2001, which was issued by the District CA NO. 4455 OF 2012Elementary
Education Officer, Mangaldoi, Darrang. The appellant received a fixed salary of 2,000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand) per month
• The time frame of the service, as stated in the appointment order, was until March 31, 2002.
The appellant claims she has been employed by the aforementioned school ever since. She
hasn't been paid a salary, even though. The State was asked for permission to pay the
appellant's salary.
• Nevertheless, the High Court determined that the submitted material lacked merit.

ISSUES

In the Supreme Court, the following issues were raised.


• Whether or not the Appellant claimed for unpaid salary

ARGUMRNTS

Appellant argument: Appellant Dulu Deka 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 of Gauhati High Court

Respondent argument: The court said that appointment of the appellant itself was illegal. As well
as appointed as an Assistant Teacher, which was beyond the Udalguri Legislative Assembly
Constituency was invalid of the rule.

JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court has ruled that once an appointment is ruled unlawful and void ab initio, an
individual does not have the legal right to remain in their position.
"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. Salary claims
could not be made for any period of time. In any case, it is hard to imagine that someone has been
employed for twenty years without receiving pay, the bench said.
A bench of Justices HimaKohli and Rajesh Bindal dismissed th e appeal filed by DuluDeka's
against the simultaneous results of the Gauhati High Court's division and single bench decisions,
dismissing her request for salary release beginning March 12, 2001. The Appellant filed a writ
petition in the High Court in 2008, requesting the release of her salary from March 12, 2001
onwards. It was claimed that she was working as an Assistant Teacher at Bengabari M.E. School
and was not receiving paid.
The Single Judge of guahati high court dismissed the writ petition. In an intra-court appeal, the
ruling was maintained.
The appellant stated that she had been working as an assistant teacher at Bengabari M E School
without receiving wages and salary. The appellant's appointment as an assistant teacher was illegal
in and of itself. afterwards an investigation in 2001, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam,
delivered an order on October 18, 2001, stating all appointments—including the appellant's—
made by the District Elementary Education Officer, Darrang, Mangaldoi at the time to be unlawful
and void ab initio due to the fact that they were made for positions that did not exist.

The appellant could not lawfully stay in employment after his appointment was deemed illegal and
void ab initio and dismissed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, by order dated
October 18, 2001, unless that cancellation order was overturned. The appellant never contested the
order dated October 18, 2001, as the High Court has noted. Because the appellant did not record
any order or letter allowing her to continue past March 31, 2002, she did not have the legal right
to continue in her position. Salary claims could not be made for any period of time. Even so, it is
hard to imagine that a person could work for twenty years without receiving pay.

REFRENCES
https://lawbeat.in/supreme-court-judgments/no-legal-right-continue-service-once-appointment-
declared-void-supreme-court

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199705005/#:~:text=2001%20onwards.,by%20GEETA%20AHUJ
A%20Date%3A%202023.08
This Article is written by Bushra of Asian Law College, Noida, and Intern at legal vidhiya

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy