Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, PRASHANT KUMAR, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - Appellants
Versus
Santu Prasad Chaudhary and Others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 590 of 2024
Decided On : 12-09-2024
(A) U.P Basic Education Act, 1972 - Rules, 1978 and 1984 - Appointment of teachers - The petitioners challenged the order derecognizing their services based on lack of training qualifications at the time of appointment in 1977 - The court held that their appointments were valid as they were qualified under the rules applicable at the time of their appointment and later acquired necessary qualifications - The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioners were treated as permanent incumbents entitled to salary arrears from July 2012 if they were found to have worked. (Paras 46-50)
(B) Employment Law - The court emphasized that appointments made prior to the enactment of new rules should not be rendered void due to subsequent qualification requirements, affirming the principle of continuity in service. (Paras 35-41)
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Ratan Deep Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State-appellants and Mrs. Kamla Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties-petitioners.
2. The instant intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has been preferred assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 27.09.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.13353 of 2013 (Santu Prasad Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.), the operative portion of which, for ready reference, is reproduced as under:-
15. More so, no illegality is apparent on the face of record at the time of adjudication of writ petition No. 12216 of 2010, wherein interim protection has been extended at the time of admission and later on considering the bonafide of the petitioner, the matter has been remitted back to the respondent no. 2 for deciding afresh.
16. Learned Standing Counsel sought attention of the court over the ground which has formed the basis of passing the order dated 12.09.2012 but at the same time fails to apprise that once the decision has been taken up by the respondent no. 1 in favour of the respondent no. 5, wherein the same position was prevalent as mentioned in the order which impugned in the present petition how the case of the petitioner are different with respondent no. 5, whereas, the allegation which has been put forward by the respondent no. 5 was only against one Mohd. Sayeed and not at all against the petitioners. The reasoning behind order dated 12.09.2012 is contrary to the order 03.08.2010.
17. It is also informed by learned counsel for the petitioners are not paid their salaries till June, 2012 and thereafter retired during pendency of the instant writ petition.
18. After having the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the counter affidavit preferred by respondent no. 5 which more or less supporting the case of the petitioners, the order dated 12.09.2012 is hereby set aside. All the petitioners are thereby treated as permanent incumbent of the institution, arrears of salary from July, 2012 till date of their retirements be extended. Since there is hardly any case made out by the respondents that the petitioners never rendered their services for the institution and thereafter, retiral benefits admissible to the petitioners be also extended within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
19. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly."
FACTS
3. The facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of instant appeal are noted herein below.
4. The opposite parties-petitioners while preferring the writ petition had challenged the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh on the ground that he had rejected the representation of the petitioners overlooking the order dated 03.08.2012 passed by Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and also prayed for direction to the respondents to pay the salary and all the emoluments to the petitioners.
5. The claim of the petitioners is that they are serving in Lal Bahadur Shastri Purwa Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jagdishpur, Raja, Siddharth Nagar, [institution in question], which is a recognized and aided Junior High School and governed under the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries) Act, 1978. The institution was granted temporary recognition on 4.6.1980 and the permanent recognition was
The court affirmed that appointments made prior to new qualification rules remain valid, emphasizing continuity of service and entitlement to salary for teachers who later acquired necessary qualific....
Appointments made under inapplicable statutory rules are void and cannot confer enforceable rights; the governing statutes change with institutional upgrades.
The court upheld the necessity of verifying the genuineness of appointments in grant-in-aid institutions, emphasizing that forged documents cannot establish entitlement to salary from public funds.
The court upheld the rejection of salary claims based on findings that the petitioners' appointment letters were forged and the selection process did not comply with applicable recruitment rules.
Point of law: If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded a....
The appointments were found to be void ab initio due to the lack of essential qualifications and the flawed selection process.
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Teacher training qualification mandatory at appointment time under statutory rules; subsequent acquisition does not validate; executive resolutions cannot override rules.
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
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
