Supreme Court-directed teacher appointments cannot be terminated for later qualification verification without Supreme Court permission.

The petitioner was selected and appointed as an Assistant Teacher against one of the 34,540 vacancies pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court in Contempt Petition No. 297 of 2007 and the selection process supervised by the Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay Committee.

He was appointed by Memo No. 170 dated 11 February 2012 and joined service at a government middle school in Rohtas.

Subsequently, the State authorities declared Lord Budha Mission Primary Teachers Training College, Kartahan, Vaishali—where the petitioner had obtained his B.Ed. qualification for the 1984–86 session—to be an unrecognised institution.

On that basis, the District Education Officer terminated the petitioner’s service by Memo No. 2422 dated 30 July 2022. The petitioner’s challenge was rejected by the Regional Deputy Director of Education by Memo No. 1258 dated 20 August 2022.

Whether a teacher appointed against the 34,540 vacancies pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions could subsequently be terminated on the ground that the educational qualification relied upon was obtained from an unrecognised institution?

Whether the termination order dated 30 July 2022 and the revisional order dated 20 August 2022 were sustainable in view of the Supreme Court’s directions protecting appointments made against the 34,540 vacancies and the Division Bench decision in L.P.A. No. 1254 of 2016 and analogous cases?

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s directions in SLP (C) No. 26824 of 2012, by which appointments already made against the 34,540 vacancies were directed not to be disturbed.

It also relied on the Supreme Court-supervised selection process conducted through the Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay Committee and the Supreme Court’s order in Contempt Petition No. 297 of 2007.

The Court followed the Division Bench judgment dated 28 August 2023 in L.P.A. No. 1254 of 2016 and analogous cases, which held that teachers appointed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions could not be terminated on the basis of subsequent or belated verification of their qualifications, unless such action was permitted by the Supreme Court.

The governing principle was that appointments made pursuant to the approved selection list for the 34,540 posts could not be disturbed by the State on the ground of later-discovered deficiencies in verification or recognition of qualifications.

The petitioner’s appointment formed part of the 34,540-teacher recruitment carried out pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions and the selection process supervised by the Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay Committee.

Applying the binding Supreme Court directions and the Division Bench ruling, the Court held that the State could not undertake a belated re-examination of the petitioner’s eligibility or terminate his service merely because the institution issuing his training qualification was later treated as unrecognised.

The State ought to have verified the petitioner’s credentials before appointment; having appointed him under the Supreme Court-supervised process, it could not disturb his service at a later stage without permission from the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the termination and revisional orders were contrary to the protection afforded to appointees against the 34,540 vacancies.

The Court quashed Memo No. 2422 dated 30 July 2022, terminating the petitioner’s service, and Memo No. 1258 dated 20 August 2022, rejecting his challenge.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and pay his entire salary from the date of termination until reinstatement, with the exercise to be completed within three months of receipt or production of the judgment.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.