Wrongfully excluded 2008 selectees are entitled to 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 31 August 2008 selection process, consequential appointment in the teaching cadre, seniority and related benefits, arrears, and compensation of ₹10 lakh.

He submitted that the controversy was covered by Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No. 23307 of 2024, decided on 15 April 2024; the State opposed relief but could not distinguish that case.

In Vinod Kumar Sharma, the Court had directed retrospective appointment from the date of the first appointment pursuant to the selection process, but denied monetary benefits for the period the petitioner had not worked.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the same retrospective appointment relief as the similarly situated petitioner in Vinod Kumar Sharma.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential monetary benefits or the additional compensation claimed.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may grant relief to a petitioner whose case is materially identical to a previously decided case.

The Court relied on its order in Vinod Kumar Sharma, which applied the principle that a qualifying candidate unlawfully denied appointment through the State’s action may receive appointment effective from the date of the first appointment pursuant to the relevant selection process, while retrospective appointment does not automatically entitle a person to back wages or monetary benefits for a period during which they did not work.

That order also considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Smita Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 764.

The Court found that the petitioner’s case was identical to Vinod Kumar Sharma and that the State had not shown any material distinction.

It therefore adopted the earlier order mutatis mutandis, rather than independently reconsidering the underlying dispute.

Consistently with that order, retrospective appointment was granted, but the relief did not include monetary benefits for the period not worked.

The respondents were directed to implement the directions in that order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the present order.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.