The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed the principle that long-standing service cannot be unsettled on technical grounds, particularly when the appointments were made in accordance with the rules prevailing at the time. In a significant ruling, the Court quashed arbitrary orders that sought to invalidate the appointments of two Assistant Teachers after nearly two decades of continuous service, emphasizing the protection of legitimate expectations and the principles of natural justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Smt. Meenakshi Sharma and another, were appointed as Assistant Teachers in Ram Singh Vishwa Chaitanya Kanya Junior High School, Astauli, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, in 2006. The institution is a duly recognized and aided junior high school governed by the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, and the Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978. The appointments were made following due process, including advertisement in newspapers, selection by a duly constituted committee, and approval by the District Basic Education Officer.
Key Facts
09.06.2006: Manager of the institution sought permission from the District Basic Education Officer to fill vacancies for two Assistant Teachers, one Clerk, and one Class-IV employee.
20.09.2006: Permission granted by the District Basic Education Officer.
23.09.2006 & 24.09.2006: Vacancies advertised in Dainik Jagran and Hind ki Zameen.
05.10.2006: Selection process conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee.
18.11.2006: Petitioner no. 1 appointed as Assistant Teacher (English) after approval by the District Basic Education Officer.
18.12.2006: Petitioner no. 2 appointed as Assistant Teacher (Science) after the selected candidate, Ms. Deepti Gaur, did not join.
02.12.2006: State Government issued a Government Order bringing several institutions, including the petitioners’ school, under the grant-in-aid list.
04.01.2007: Inclusion in the grant-in-aid list communicated to the institution.
21.02.2007: Salaries of teachers began to be disbursed from the State Exchequer, but the petitioners were initially excluded.
19.12.2014: State Government issued a Government Order providing for payment of salary to the petitioners.
14.08.2018: Regional Approval Committee, chaired by the Regional Assistant Director (Basic), Meerut, approved payment of salary to the petitioners with effect from 19.12.2014.
Procedural History
The petitioners faced repeated challenges to their appointments and salary entitlements:
12.06.2019: Writ-A No. 970 of 2019 filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking payment of salary and arrears.
02.04.2024: Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
16.05.2024: Division Bench allowed Special Appeal No. 488 of 2024, setting aside the Single Judge’s order and directing the Secretary, Basic Education, to consider the petitioners’ claim for salary and arrears after verifying records and affording an opportunity of hearing.
26.08.2025: Secretary, Basic Education, declared the petitioners’ appointments void on the ground of alleged non-compliance with rules.
30.08.2025: Respondent No. 2 passed an order at the behest of Respondent No. 1, compelling Respondent No. 3 to initiate action against the petitioners without affording them a hearing.
01.09.2025: Respondent No. 3 restrained the petitioners from discharging their duties.
08.09.2025: Respondent No. 4 passed an ex-parte order cancelling its earlier order dated 14.08.2018, without notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
09.10.2025: High Court directed respondents to file a counter-affidavit in Writ-A No. 14225 of 2025, which challenged the orders dated 26.08.2025, 30.08.2025, and 01.09.2025.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
Quashing of the impugned orders dated 26.08.2025, 30.08.2025, 01.09.2025, and 08.09.2025.
A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful functioning on their posts.
Direction to respondent no. 2 to ensure payment of current salary to the petitioners in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the respondent authorities could reopen and invalidate the petitioners’ appointments after nearly two decades of continuous service, particularly when:
The appointments were made in accordance with the rules prevailing at the time.
The Regional Approval Committee had already approved the appointments after due scrutiny.
The petitioners had been discharging their duties without objection from the authorities for a considerable period.
The impugned orders were passed without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners’ appointments were made in accordance with the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, prevailing at the time of selection.
The Regional Approval Committee had thoroughly examined all objections and approved the appointments vide order dated 14.08.2018, which remained in force.
The impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction, as the scope of inquiry was limited to payment of salary and arrears, not reopening the validity of appointments.
The orders were arbitrary, ex-parte, and in violation of natural justice, as the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing.
The petitioners had been working continuously for nearly two decades, and their service could not be unsettled on technical grounds, relying on precedents such as District Basic Education Officer, District Mau v. Jagdamba Singh and Kalindi Pandey v. State of U.P. & Others.
The Supreme Court, in Committee of Management v. State of U.P. and Others, had protected the services of teachers appointed with B.Ed qualifications before the 2008 amendment to the Rules.
For the Respondents
The advertisement for the vacancies did not specify the minimum qualifications, violating Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978.
The prescribed qualification for Assistant Teachers in 2006 was a pass in Secondary Education with Hindi and a teacher training qualification (STC, JTC, BTC). A B.Ed degree was not recognized as a qualification until the 2008 amendment.
The petitioners did not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications at the time of appointment, rendering their appointments invalid.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the factual and legal matrix, emphasizing the following key aspects:
Finality of Approval: The Regional Approval Committee had already approved the petitioners’ appointments vide order dated 14.08.2018 after addressing all objections. The Court observed that once such approval was granted, there was no occasion for the authorities to reopen the matter, particularly when the order remained in force.
Scope of Inquiry: The Division Bench, in its order dated 16.05.2024, had confined the inquiry to the petitioners’ entitlement to salary and arrears. The respondent authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by reopening the validity of the petitioners’ selection, which had already been conclusively determined.
Violation of Natural Justice: The impugned orders were passed ex-parte, without notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Court held that such arbitrary action was patently illegal and unsustainable in law.
Protection of Long-Standing Service: The Court relied on several judgments, including District Basic Education Officer, District Mau v. Jagdamba Singh and Kalindi Pandey v. State of U.P. & Others, to emphasize that long and uninterrupted service creates a legitimate equity in favour of the employee. It observed that where appointments have been expressly approved or the incumbents have been permitted to continue for years without objection, it is not open to the authorities to subsequently invalidate such appointments on grounds available at the time of appointment.
"Where a teacher has been appointed and has continued in service for a long period, particularly with the knowledge of the competent authorities, such service ought not to be unsettled on mere technical objections."
Supreme Court Precedents: The Court cited Committee of Management v. State of U.P. and Others, wherein the Supreme Court protected the services of teachers appointed with B.Ed qualifications before the 2008 amendment. It also relied on State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, and Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, all of which emphasized that long-standing service cannot be ignored on technical grounds, particularly when the appointments were not tainted by fraud.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders:
Order dated 08.09.2025 passed by Respondent No. 4.
Order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1.
Order dated 30.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2.
Order dated 01.09.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3.
The Court directed that all benefits to which the petitioners are entitled, including payment of salary and arrears, be provided to them.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable
Authorities cannot pass ex-parte orders without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Any order passed in violation of natural justice is liable to be set aside.
Practitioners must emphasize the principles of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause) when challenging arbitrary actions.
Long-Standing Service Deserves Protection
Employees who have rendered long and uninterrupted service, particularly with the knowledge and approval of competent authorities, cannot be deprived of their benefits on technical grounds.
Courts are inclined to protect such service, especially when the appointments were not tainted by fraud or illegality.
Practitioners should argue that long-standing service creates a legitimate expectation, and authorities cannot take advantage of their own lapses after having benefited from the employees’ work.
Finality of Approval
Once a competent authority has approved an appointment after due scrutiny, the same cannot be reopened unless there is a clear jurisdictional error or fraud.
Authorities must adhere to the scope of inquiry as defined by higher judicial orders. Any deviation from such scope is impermissible and liable to be set aside.
