Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Rohit Prasad Singh, Son of Late Tripurari Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through The Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 2291 of 2016
Decided On : 16-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA-I
Illegal appointments without compliance to procedures do not provide grounds for entitlement to promotions or benefits under educational regulations.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Candidates appointed as teachers - Claims for grade promotion - Petitioners appointed unlawfully and never undergone training - Court affirms no entitlement to promotions or benefits due to lack of qualifications - Their illegal continuance does not confer rights for higher grades. (Paras 2, 8, 9)
(B) Legal appointments - Compliance with procedural rules is mandatory for validation of appointments - Non-compliance results in nullifying any claims for promotion or benefits. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers during 1983-84 without following prescribed procedures and later faced termination. They continued working under a status quo order from the Patna High Court without proving their claims.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners presented no substantial documentation supporting their appointment claims and failed to prove qualifications requisite for promotion according to Promotion Rules, 1993.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the Petitioners’ appointment and their entitlement to in-service training and grade promotions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that illegal appointments without proper documentation and qualifications cannot confer any rights to claim promotions or benefits, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with procedural regulations for valid employment.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The petitioners, who were appointed as Assistant Teachers during 1983-84, sought promotion and benefits, claiming entitlement based on seniority and training rights (!) (!) .
-
Their appointments were made without following prescribed procedures, and upon discovery of irregularities, their services were terminated by higher authorities. However, the petitioners continued to serve under a status quo order issued by the Patna High Court, without proving their claims or undergoing in-service training (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the petitioners did not produce supporting documentation to substantiate their appointment claims and failed to demonstrate that they met the qualifications necessary for promotion under the applicable rules (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that illegal appointments, especially those made without compliance with procedural requirements, do not confer any legal rights to promotions or higher grades. Continued illegal service does not establish entitlement to benefits or higher positions (!) .
-
The court found that the petitioners' services, being untrained and appointed unlawfully, do not grant them rights to promotions or higher grades, and their illegal continuance in service does not alter this position (!) .
-
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that non-compliance with procedural rules and lack of requisite qualifications negate claims for promotion or benefits, and illegal appointments cannot be validated retroactively (!) .
-
The court also noted that the petitioners' claims are not covered by relevant government resolutions or prior court orders, further undermining their entitlement to relief (!) .
In summary, the court held that illegal appointments made without following proper procedures and without necessary qualifications do not create rights to promotions or benefits, and continued illegal service does not confer legal entitlements.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek grade-i scale and benefits. (Para 1) |
| 2. background of petitioners' appointments and termination. (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioners argue valid appointment despite notices. (Para 3) |
| 4. respondents contest legality of petitioners' appointments. (Para 4) |
| 5. court reviews the appointment legality and status. (Para 5) |
| 6. petitioners failed to provide supporting documents. (Para 6) |
| 7. district committee referred case without decision. (Para 7) |
| 8. petitioners do not fall under government resolution. (Para 8) |
| 9. illegal service does not grant rights to promotion. (Para 9) |
| 10. court finds no merit; petition dismissed. (Para 10) |
| 11. closure of pending applications. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:
“i) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) /order(s) / direction(s), in the nature of Mandamus, commanding upon and directing the respondents to grant Grade-I scale to the petitioners from the date of their joining and further Grade II Grade IV & Grade VI, in view of the fact that the petitioners are entitled to get their in-service training from Govt. Training college in the next sessions from the date of their joining but due to the latches and delay on the part of the respondents and no fault on the part of the petitioners, for not providing training, for which the petitioners cannot be held liable and cannot be made to suffer on that account and thus they are entitled to seniority from the date of their joining with all consequential benefits, as held by this Hon'ble Court and affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
ii) For direction upon the respondent to send the petitioners in-service training which has been not provided even after lapse of 33 years of service due to the latches on the part of the respondents, which is wholly arbitrary, unjust & unsustainable in the eye of law:
iii) For direction upon the respondents to maintain the Gradation List on the basis of the seniority of these petitioners:
iv) Further for direction upon the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits arising due to petitioners' promotion under appropriate Grade from the date of their joining: Pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, as Your Lordships may deem fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of this case.
Pass such other wit/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, as Your Lordships may deem fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of this case.”
2. Briefly stated, during 1981 to 1983, a large number of candidates including the Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers without complying the prescribed procedures. When the said illegal appointments came to the notice of the higher authorities, the services of those candidates were terminated vide Memo No. 10966-69 dated 11.02.1985, issued pursuant to the order of the Director, Primary Education, Patna, Government of Bihar, passed on 13.11.1984. The said order of termination was subsequently challenged before the Patna High Court, where the Patna High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. Consequently, the Petitioners were allowed to continue in service during the pendency of the writ petitions.
Pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Court, the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna, vide letter dated 25.07.1994, accepted the claim of 136 candidates from Deoghar District; however, the claim of 33 candidates, including the present Petitioners, was not included in the said list. The matter was thereafter taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court; whereupon the authorities reconsidered the cases of all applicants, and a fresh panel was prepared and published on 25.07.1994. Despite the aforesaid, and in spite of repeated reminders, the Petitioners did not come forward to substantiate their claim for continuance in service. However, they continued to work without undergoing in-service training, under the protection of the status quo order passed by th
