Back
SUDHIR AGARWAL
NIDHI JAIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a compassionate basis, but the appointment was found to be illegal and void ab initio because she did not possess the required training qualification at the time of appointment (!) (!) .
The appointment was made under a mistaken belief that the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment, which was a result of negligence or deliberate illegality on the part of the then District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) (!) (!) .
The petitioner’s claim that her family suffered penury due to her mother’s death was not substantiated, as her father was employed in the government service at the time of her appointment, making her ineligible for compassionate appointment under the relevant rules (!) (!) .
The appointment was not based on fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner; rather, it was due to an administrative lapse or negligence by the responsible authorities (!) (!) .
Since the appointment was illegal from the outset, it is considered a nullity, and the termination of the petitioner’s services was a declaration of this illegality rather than a dismissal based on misconduct (!) .
The court emphasized that appointment lacking the essential qualification (training qualification) is void from the beginning, and such appointments cannot be validated by subsequent actions or continuance in service (!) (!) .
The court directed the recovery of the entire salary paid to the petitioner pursuant to this illegal appointment from the then DBEO, who was held responsible for the illegality (!) .
A departmental inquiry was ordered to be initiated against the former DBEO to investigate the circumstances of the illegal appointment and to hold accountable those responsible for the negligence or misconduct (!) .
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the illegality of the appointment and the consequent termination, and underscored the importance of accountability for administrative lapses (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with any specific aspect of this case.
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner at great length, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and have perused the record.
2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.12.2011 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) which is show-cause notice issued by District Basic Education Officer Mahamayanagar (Hathras) (hereinafter referred to as “DBEO”) requiring petitioner to show-cause as to why her services be not terminated since her very appointment on compassionate basis was illegal and contrary to the rules. The order dated 10.2.2012 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has been declared illegal as a consequence whereof petitioner has been terminated by order passed by DBEO is the consequential order impugned herein.
3. Certain facts which are not in dispute may be stated in brief as under.
4. The petitioner’s mother Smt. Usha Jaiswal was working as Assistant Teacher and posted at Gigrauli Primary School Hathras. It is also not in dispute that petitioner’s father Sri Narendra Kumar Jain was also employed as Station Master in Indian
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
