From Teacher to Judge: Supreme Court Upholds Tribal Woman's Right to Serve After Disputed Dismissal.


[ Court Doc ]   Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Employee Related >> Corporate Law   |   Education >> Miscellaneous  

The journey to becoming a judge is rigorous, demanding not only academic excellence but also impeccable conduct. However, what happens when a promising candidate, especially one from a marginalized background, faces dismissal over alleged past irregularities, even after successfully completing their training? A recent Supreme Court of India judgment of Pinky Meena v/s The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur & Another., stemming from an appeal against an order by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, sheds light on such a nuanced situation, emphasizing justice, proportionality, and the importance of due process, especially for probationers.

The Story of a Resilient Candidate:

This case centers on a highly educated tribal woman, holding degrees in Arts, Education, Law (LL.B.), and a Master's in Law (LL.M.). Her career began as a Grade-II Teacher in the Rajasthan Education Department in 2014. In 2017, she applied for the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate post, successfully clearing the preliminary and main examinations despite battling lymphadenopathy tuberculosis.
 
 

Crucially, before her interview on November 2, 2018, she resigned from her teaching job on October 25, 2018. Her resignation was officially accepted on December 28, 2018. The final result for the judicial service was declared on November 4, 2018, confirming her selection. She joined as a trainee Judicial Service officer on March 6, 2019, successfully completing her intensive training on March 7, 2020.

The Allegations and The Discharge:

The appellant's journey took an unexpected turn when complaints were filed against her. Based on these complaints, the High Court issued a show cause notice on February 17, 2020, seeking explanations on five key points:
  • Simultaneous Degrees: Allegedly obtaining LL.B. (first year) and B.Ed. degrees in the same year, suggesting fraudulent attendance. (Her explanation: LL.B. First Year isn't a "main exam" per university rules).
  • LL.M. While Employed: Pursuing LL.M. as a regular student while serving as a teacher, again alleging fraudulent attendance. (Her explanation: LL.M. courses often don't have regular classes).
  • Concealed Employment: Not disclosing her government teacher employment in the RJS interview checklist. (Her explanation: She had already resigned before the checklist submission and there was no specific column for past employment).
  • No Objection Certificate (NOC): Not obtaining permission or an NOC from the Education Department for appearing in the RJS Examination. (Her explanation: RJS rules didn't require prior employer permission).
  • Concealed Resignation: Concealing her selection in RJS from both the High Court and Education Department, and joining judicial services after resigning on medical grounds. (Her explanation: By the date of joining RJS, she was no longer a government servant).
An inquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) based on these allegations. Although she was granted a personal hearing, the inquiry itself was conducted without her active participation or the provision of the inquiry report. The Full Court of the High Court, relying on this report, concluded that she was unfit for confirmation as a probationer and issued an order discharging her from service on May 29, 2020. Her subsequent writ petition to the High Court challenging this dismissal was also rejected.

Supreme Court's Scrutiny and Decision:

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the entire case, focusing on the nature of the allegations and the procedure followed:
Past Misconduct: The Court noted that the alleged misconducts regarding simultaneous degrees (LL.B. and B.Ed.) and pursuing LL.M. while teaching pertained to her time in the Education Department, not her probationary period as a Judicial Officer. It questioned why the Education Department itself hadn't acted on these.
Concealment of Employment: The most significant allegation was about not disclosing her past government service. The Supreme Court found her explanation reasonable: she had already resigned from her teaching post before submitting the checklist for her interview. Therefore, she was no longer a government servant on the relevant date. The Court viewed this as a minor "omission" rather than a serious misconduct warranting discharge, especially when it didn't involve criminal antecedents.
Probationer Rights: The Court highlighted that her performance during probation was "satisfactory" and she had "successfully completed her training with flying colours." Rules governing probation (Rules 44, 45, 46 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010) allow for discharge if performance is unsatisfactory, but that was not the case here.
Stigmatic Termination: The Court emphasized that while a probationer has no right to hold a post, if their termination is based on misconduct as a punishment, it becomes "stigmatic" and requires a proper inquiry with due process, adhering to principles of natural justice. In this case, the inquiry was conducted without her full participation and the report was not furnished, making the discharge order violative of natural justice.
Promoting Diversity: The Supreme Court also took a broader view, acknowledging the importance of women's participation and diversity in the judiciary. It stressed that increasing the representation of women judges improves the quality of judicial decision-making and fosters greater public trust, especially among women seeking justice. The Court recognized her perseverance as a tribal girl and her qualifications as beneficial to the judicial system.

The Verdict:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside both the show cause notice and the discharge order. It ordered her immediate reinstatement, with all consequential benefits, including seniority and notional pay fixation (though excluding back wages). Crucially, the Court directed that she be treated as having successfully completed her probation and be considered a "confirmed employee."

Conclusion:

This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court serves as a powerful reminder that while integrity is paramount in public service, particularly in the judiciary, the process for assessing conduct must be fair, proportional, and adhere to natural justice. It underscores that minor omissions, especially with reasonable explanations and when not related to criminal behavior, should not lead to the "capital punishment" of career termination. Furthermore, it reinforces the judiciary's commitment to fostering diversity and recognizing the valuable contributions of individuals from all backgrounds, ensuring that deserving candidates are not unjustly penalized.