A landmark ruling by the Allahabad High Court has affirmed that prolonged, uninterrupted service under an irregular appointment cannot be undone decades later merely because procedural irregularities existed at the time of hiring. The Court emphasized that equity, justice, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation outweigh technical defects when an employee has served for over two decades without challenge.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shri Brijendra Singh, was appointed to a Class-IV post at Shri Krishna Inter College, Sankara, District Aligarh, through an appointment letter dated 25.02.1999 issued by the Principal of the College and subsequently approved by the relevant authorities. The appointment was not made through a competitive recruitment process. In 2002, the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.), Aligarh, issued an order dated 19.09.2002 withdrawing the approval of the petitioner’s appointment. The grounds cited were: (1) the appointment violated Government Order dated 09.07.1978, which imposed a ban on direct recruitment to Class-IV posts; and (2) the appointment failed to comply with the reservation requirements under the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.
Key Facts
- Appointment letter issued on 25.02.1999 by the Principal of Shri Krishna Inter College
- Approval of appointment confirmed by competent authority shortly thereafter
- Complaint filed leading to inquiry by D.I.O.S. Aligarh
- Impugned order withdrawing approval issued on 19.09.2002
- Petitioner declared age as 25 years at the time of filing writ petition in 2002, making him approximately 50 years old in 2026
- Petitioner has remained in continuous service since 1999 without interruption
- No disciplinary proceedings or performance-related issues were raised during his service
Procedural History
- 19.09.2002: D.I.O.S. Aligarh issued order withdrawing approval of petitioner’s appointment
- 2002: Writ Petition No. 46101 of 2002 filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the withdrawal order
- 28.10.2002: High Court granted interim stay on the impugned order, permitting petitioner to continue in service
- The writ petition was directed to be connected with Writ Petition No. 35519 of 2002
- No final hearing occurred for over two decades due to procedural delays and backlog
- Petitioner continued working without interruption from 1999 to 2026
- Final hearing conducted on 11.05.2026
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 19.09.2002, restoration of his appointment, confirmation of service from 25.02.1999, and regularization of his position with all consequential benefits including pay, allowances, and pensionary rights.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appointment made in violation of administrative instructions and without compliance with reservation norms can be invalidated after more than two decades of continuous service, particularly when the employee has no personal fault and the state has acquiesced in his continued employment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two Full Bench judgments of the Allahabad High Court: Heera Lal vs. State of U.P. (2010(6) ADJ 1 FB) and Harpal Singh vs. State of U.P. (2015(3) ADJ 236 FB). These judgments held that: (1) the U.P. Public Services (Reservation) Act, 1994 does not apply to posts with a strength of less than five; and (2) administrative instructions cannot override statutory provisions or create new conditions for appointment that are not mandated by law. The petitioner argued that the withdrawal order was legally unsustainable on both grounds and that his long service created a legitimate expectation of continuity.
For the Respondent
The Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute the legal position laid down in the cited judgments. However, he submitted that the exact number of posts in the petitioner’s institution needed to be verified from official records to confirm whether the reservation Act was applicable. He did not contest the petitioner’s continuous service or the passage of time.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the appointment was technically irregular, having been made in contravention of the 1978 Government Order and possibly without reservation compliance. However, it emphasized that irregularity does not equate to illegality, particularly when the employee has served without challenge for over 24 years. The Court cited Radhey Shyam Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. (2024 INSC 7), where the Supreme Court held that long-standing service under an irregular appointment cannot be disturbed merely on technical grounds, as it would violate principles of equity and good faith.
"The State cannot remain silent for over two decades and then seek to undo an appointment on grounds that were known or ought to have been known at the time of appointment. To do so would be to encourage arbitrariness and undermine the legitimate expectations of public servants."
The Court further held that the legal principles established in Heera Lal and Harpal Singh were directly applicable: the reservation Act did not apply to posts of less than five strength, and administrative instructions cannot override statutory or constitutional mandates. Since the State did not dispute these precedents and failed to produce evidence that the post in question exceeded five strength, the grounds for withdrawal collapsed.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had no personal involvement in the procedural lapses and had rendered unbroken service, contributing to public education. Dismissing him at this stage would cause grave hardship and serve no public interest.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 19.09.2002 withdrawing the petitioner’s appointment was set aside. The petitioner’s service from 25.02.1999 onwards is deemed valid for all purposes, including pay, allowances, seniority, and pensionary benefits. The State is directed to regularize his position within 8 weeks and compute and pay all arrears of pay and allowances with 6% interest from the date of each default until realization.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Long Service Creates Legitimate Expectation
- Practitioners representing employees with 20+ years of service under irregular appointments must argue that equity and estoppel bar termination
- Courts will not permit the State to exploit procedural defects after decades of acquiescence
- The doctrine of legitimate expectation now has stronger footing in service law
Administrative Instructions Cannot Override Statutes
- Any order withdrawing service based solely on non-compliance with circulars or administrative orders is legally vulnerable
- Where statutes like the U.P. Reservation Act are invoked, the threshold (e.g., post strength) must be proven, not assumed
- The burden shifts to the State to demonstrate statutory violation, not the employee to prove compliance
Delay Defeats Remedy in Service Matters
- Delay in challenging appointments, especially when the employee has continued working, is a critical factor
- Courts will weigh the prejudice to the employee against the technicality of the State’s claim
- Writ petitions filed after long delays are not automatically dismissed - the merits and conduct of both parties are examined
