The Bombay High Court has clarified that government resolutions imposing recruitment bans cannot be applied retrospectively to appointments made prior to the ban's issuance. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative prohibitions must operate prospectively, ensuring that validly appointed employees receive their rightful benefits, including salary arrears and inclusion in official payroll systems.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vitthal s/o Dilip Pungle, was appointed as a Junior Clerk in Janta Primary School, Gavali Mohalla, Old Jalna (Respondent No. 5) on 13.12.2016 pursuant to an advertisement dated 30.11.2016. The appointment was made by Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Jalna (Respondent No. 4), an educational trust running the school. The petitioner’s appointment was proposed to the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Jalna (Respondent No. 3) for approval, which was rejected by an order dated 10.12.2021 on the ground that the appointment was made during a ban period imposed by a Government Resolution dated 11.12.2020.
Key Facts
The petitioner participated in a selection process advertised on 30.11.2016 and was appointed on 13.12.2016.
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted a proposal to Respondent No. 3 for approval of the petitioner’s appointment.
The impugned order dated 10.12.2021 rejected the proposal, citing the Government Resolution dated 11.12.2020, which imposed a ban on recruitment in educational institutions.
The petitioner sought approval of his appointment from 12.12.2016 to 11.12.2019 and regular pay scale thereafter, along with inclusion in the Shalarth System and release of salary arrears.
Procedural History
13.12.2016: Petitioner appointed as Junior Clerk.
11.12.2020: Government Resolution imposing ban on recruitment issued.
10.12.2021: Respondent No. 3 rejected the proposal for approval of the petitioner’s appointment.
Writ Petition No. 8615 of 2023: Filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking quashing of the impugned order and directions for approval of appointment and consequential benefits.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
Quashing of the impugned order dated 10.12.2021.
A direction to Respondent No. 3 to grant approval to his appointment as Junior Clerk from 12.12.2016 to 11.12.2019 and thereafter in regular pay scale.
Inclusion of his name in the Shalarth System within two weeks.
Release of salary arrears within six weeks.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Government Resolution imposing a ban on recruitment could be applied retrospectively to invalidate an appointment made prior to the issuance of the ban.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Yashwant s/o Jaisingh Ahire v. The State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No. 3117 of 2023), wherein the Court had held that appointments made before the issuance of a government resolution imposing a ban could not be invalidated retrospectively. The petitioner argued that his appointment on 13.12.2016 predated the ban dated 11.12.2020, and thus, the ban could not be applied to his case.
For the Respondents
Respondent No. 3 contended that the petitioner’s appointment was made during the ban period imposed by the Government Resolution dated 11.12.2020, and thus, it was illegal. The Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) adopted these submissions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner’s appointment order was dated 13.12.2016, whereas the Government Resolution imposing the ban was dated 11.12.2020. The Court held that the ban could not be given retrospective effect, as it would unjustly invalidate appointments made prior to its issuance.
The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Yashwant s/o Jaisingh Ahire, wherein it had dealt with an identical issue. In that case, the Court had quashed an impugned order and directed the Education Officer to grant approval to appointments made before the ban. The relevant observations from the judgment are reproduced below:
"5. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order relies upon the Government Resolution dated 12.02.2015 and the Government Resolution dated 11.12.2020 for rejecting the proposal seeking approval to the petitioner's appointment. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 09.12.2024 in Writ Petition No. 6355 of 2023 and order dated 11.03.2022 in Writ Petition No. 5241 of 2021, wherein, in identical facts, directions were issued by this Court to grant approval to the appointments as it was held that the Government Resolution dated 12.02.2015 would not apply retrospectively. Consideration of the record of the present matter, it is apparent that the appointments of the petitioners were made in the years 2011 and 2012 and the proposal seeking approval was submitted in the year 2013 much prior to the Government Resolution dated 12.02.2015 and the Government Resolution dated 11.12.2020. Impugned order dated 19.07.2022 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 - Education Officer is directed to grant approval to the appointments of the petitioners to the post of Peon, Class-IV, from the respective dates of appointment within six weeks. Respondent No. 3 is further directed to grant consequential benefits including insertion of names in Shalarth Pranali to release salary."
Applying the principles laid down in Yashwant s/o Jaisingh Ahire, the Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’. The Court:
Quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2021.
Directed Respondent No. 3 to grant approval to the petitioner’s appointment as Junior Clerk from 12.12.2016 to 11.12.2019 and thereafter in regular pay scale.
Directed inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the Shalarth System within two weeks.
Directed release of salary arrears within six weeks.
Made no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Retrospective Application of Administrative Bans Is Invalid
This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative prohibitions, such as recruitment bans, cannot be applied retrospectively. Practitioners should argue that:
Appointments made prior to the issuance of a ban cannot be invalidated by subsequent resolutions.
Government resolutions must operate prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Retrospective application of bans would lead to arbitrary deprivation of rights and violate principles of natural justice.
Consequential Benefits Must Follow Approval
Once an appointment is approved, consequential benefits, including salary arrears and inclusion in official systems (e.g., Shalarth System), must be granted.
Courts are likely to direct timely compliance with such orders, as seen in this case where the Court set strict deadlines for inclusion and payment.
Reliance on Precedents Is Crucial
Practitioners should cite judgments with identical facts, such as Yashwant s/o Jaisingh Ahire, to strengthen arguments against retrospective application of bans.
Courts are inclined to follow binding precedents where similar legal issues have been resolved in favor of employees.
