Unlawfully delayed appointment warrants retrospective appointment, but not monetary benefits for periods not worked.

The petitioner sought appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III from the date of the first appointment made pursuant to the 2008 selection process, along with consequential benefits including retrospective fixation, seniority, and associated pay benefits.

He also sought appointment in the Sahayak Adhyapak/Prathmik Shikshak cadre and arrears.

Counsel submitted that the controversy had already been decided in *Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and Others*, W.P. No. 23307 of 2024, and that the petitioner had completed the BTI course.

In *Vinod Kumar Sharma*, the Court directed retrospective appointment from the date of the first appointment under the 2008 selection process, but denied monetary benefits for the period during which the petitioner had not worked.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III from the date of the first appointment made pursuant to the 2008 selection process, with the benefit of the ruling in *Vinod Kumar Sharma*.

2. Whether the relief granted should include monetary benefits for the period the petitioner did not work.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the reasoning in *Vinod Kumar Sharma*, which relied on *Smita Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and Others*, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 764, for restitutive relief where the State’s arbitrary conduct had delayed a selected candidate’s appointment.

That relief included appointment effective from the date of the first appointment pursuant to the selection process, but did not extend to back wages for a period in which the candidate had not worked.

The reproduced decision also referred to *Anil Bhatt v. State of M.P.*, 2012(2) MPLJ 82, which quashed the 5 October 2009 circular and directed consideration under the unamended criteria.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s case was governed by the decision in *Vinod Kumar Sharma*.

That decision treated the candidate there as similarly situated to the appellant in *Smita Shrivastava* because the State’s litigation and delayed implementation of the selection process had postponed appointment.

Applying that ruling, the Court directed that its benefits extend *mutatis mutandis* to the petitioner.

The incorporated ruling also excluded monetary benefits for the period during which the candidate had not worked.

The respondents were directed to extend the benefit within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The incorporated relief included appointment as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III effective from the date of the first appointment pursuant to the 2008 selection process, without monetary benefits for the period not worked.