Entitlement to Notional Service Benefits from Date of Appointment of Similarly Situated Junior Meritorious Candidates.

The petitioners participated in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for the post of Uchcha Madhyamic Shikshak (High School Teacher). Initially, their candidatures were rejected based on "relevancy of subject" criteria defined in a notification dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure P/21).

The petitioners challenged these rejection orders and sought appointment based on their merit in the TET.

During the pendency of these petitions, the grievance of the petitioners was partially redressed as the State granted them appointments; however, these appointments were made nine months after other similarly situated candidates with lower marks had already been appointed.

Consequently, the petitioners limited their prayer to seeking seniority and other service benefits (excluding monetary benefits) from the date their juniors were appointed.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek service benefits and seniority from the date similarly situated persons with lower merit marks were appointed, despite their own appointments being delayed by nine months.

2. Whether the Court should direct the respondent-authorities to consider the petitioners' representations regarding the retrospective grant of service benefits.

The Court primarily exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The principle applied is that of administrative redressal, where the court may direct an authority to consider a representation made by a party if a prima facie case of "similitude" in controversy is established.

The court also adhered to the principle of judicial restraint by not expressing an opinion on the merits of the claims during the direction for representation.

The Court noted that the core controversy regarding the validity of the appointments had been largely settled as the State had already issued appointment orders to the petitioners.

The petitioners’ counsel made an "innocuous prayer" requesting only the liberty to file a representation for service benefits (seniority, etc.) rather than back-wages (monetary benefits).

Since the primary relief (appointment) was already granted, the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the batch of petitions by directing an administrative review of the claims for consequential seniority. By ordering the respondents to pass a "speaking order," the Court ensured that the administrative authority applies its mind to whether the delay in appointment caused an unfair loss of seniority relative to less meritorious candidates.

It directed the petitioners to file a representation within 15 days.

The respondents are ordered to decide said representation through a speaking order within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

If found entitled, the petitioners are to be extended service benefits (excluding monetary benefits) from the date of appointment of similarly situated persons.