The court ruled that appointments exceeding statutory age limits are void, yet if no fraud occurs, longstanding service may warrant equitable relief despite technical violations.

JUDGMENT :

INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Umang Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 and, Mr. Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present intra-Court appeal has arisen against the order of learned Single Judge dated 08.05.2025 in Anita Rani versus State of U.P. and 4 others, Neutral Citaion:-2025:AHC:74204 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing as follows:-

“11. In view of above, the relevant dates are (I) date of completion of Special BTC Course, (ii) date of submission of form for recruitment process and (iii) date of appointment.

12. In present case, petitioner has completed Special BTC Training course on 12.06.2012 and advertisement was issued on 19.12.2014 i.e. after 2 years and 6 months and 7 days. The petitioner was a Scheduled Caste candidate, therefore, a relaxation of 5 years was granted in maximum age limit i.e. 45 years and she can apply after adding 2 years 6 months and 7 days i.e. up to 47 years 6 months 21 days as on cut off date i.e. 01.07.2014 taking into consideration that course was concluded on 12.06.2012 and application was submitted on 01.07.2014, but she was about 48 years 2 months, therefore, she was not entitled to apply as well as she was granted appointment on 02.07.2016, when she has crossed maximum age of 50 years, therefore, her appointment was void-ab-initio.

13. In aforesaid circumstances, since above referred facts are undisputed, therefore, in terms of G.O. dated 29.10.2015, the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the recruitment process itself and therefore, illegally appointed, therefore, there is no ground to cause interference in impugned order whereby her appointment was declared void-ab-initio.”

3. Facts, which reflect from the record, are that the appellant was selected for Special Basic Training Certificate in the year 2008, however, she could complete said training on 05.06.2012. Subsequently, she passed her U.P.T.E.T. Examination on 24.05.2014. No recruitment process of Special BTC Trained Candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers was immediately commenced.

4. It is on 09.12.2014, State of U.P. issued a notification for recruitment of 15000 Assistant Teachers from Special BTC Trained candidates wherein the appellant applied and got appointment on 02.07.2016, however, on 20.12.2017, a notice was issued to the appellant requiring her to explain that as the appellant had completed the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment, i.e., 02.07.2016, her appointment was liable to be cancelled. A reply to the said notice was filed, however, vide order dated 28.10.2023 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, the appointment of the appellant was declared void-ab-initio.

5. Feeling aggrieved, appellant preferred Writ-A No. 19644 of 2023, which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order impugned herein.

6. The record transpires that as per the notification/advertisement dated 09.12.2014 issued for the post in question, the last date for submission of the application form was 10.02.2015 and in pursuance to aforesaid notification, the petitioner applied for the post in question on 05.01.2015. The age of the original petitioner/appellant herein was 48 years 8 months 4 days on the date of submission of application form. The case of the appellant is that she is entitled for age relaxation of 2 years six months 21 days in terms of Third Proviso appended to Rule 6 contained in Part IV of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (For sake of brevity hereinafter shall