Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3784
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJAN ROY, INDRAJEET SHUKLA, JJ.
State of U.P. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Ajay Kumar Singh S/o Girja Baksh Singh – Respondent
Special Appeal No. 730 of 2009
Decided On : 11-12-2025
For the Respondents: Pankaj Bajpai, Harsha Yadav, Shishir Chandra, Sudhir Pande
Appointments made against temporary vacancies in educational institutions under specific statutory provisions cannot exceed the duration of the current academic session and do not grant the incumbent any right to regularization or continued employment beyond that term.
Headnote:(A) Education Law - Appointment in aided institutions - Section 16-E(11) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Temporary appointment against short-term vacancy - Duration - An appointment made against a temporary vacancy by the managing committee is strictly governed by statutory provisions and cannot endure beyond the end of the academic session during which the vacancy occurred. (Paras 11, 13, 17)
(B) Service Law - Regularization - Entitlement to seek permanent status from a temporary appointment under Section 16-E(11) - There is no legal provision for the regularization of candidates appointed under temporary arrangements, nor does such an appointment confer a right to continue in service beyond the academic session. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was appointed as an assistant teacher in an educational institution. The competent authorities refused to grant administrative approval for this appointment on the basis that the vacancy, having arisen from the promotion of the previous incumbent, was to be filled through a formal selection process. The initial court had allowed the petition, directing the continuation of service and payment of salary. The state government challenged this decision, contending that the appointment was purely temporary and had exceeded the permissible legal tenure.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the appointment in question was purely temporary in nature as defined under the governing education statutes. The judicial precedents relied upon by the initial court were found to be inapplicable to the specific facts, as the appointee did not meet the criteria for a permanent or substantive appointment. Consequently, the direction to allow the appointee to continue in service indefinitely was held to be legally untenable.
Issues: Whether an appointment made against a temporary vacancy in an educational institution is entitled to continue beyond the end of the academic session and whether such an appointee can claim a right to regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory mandates for temporary appointments against unforeseen vacancies are intended to serve educational exigencies for the remainder of an academic session only. Such appointments are inherently finite and do not create a legal entitlement to indefinite employment or subsequent regularization, as they are distinct from regular substantive recruitment processes.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and admission of appeal for final disposal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual context of the dispute regarding appointment and challenge to dios order. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. section 16-e(11) of the 1921 act limits temporary appointments to the end of the academic session. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. management lacks authority to make substantive appointments against substantive vacancies; regularization is unavailable for illegal/section 16-e(11) appointments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. appointments under section 16-e(11) have no right to continue beyond the academic year or claim regular appointment status. (Para 17) |
| 6. final order allowing the appeal and barring recovery of salary paid. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri V.P. Nag, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-appellants and Ms. Harsha Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.
2. This is a special appeal preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No. 6447 (S/S) of 2000.
3. There is an interim order operating in favour of the State- appellants having been passed on 23.07.2019 which reads as under:-
"Order on Delay Condonation Application This appeal is barred by limitation from 954 days.
An application is preferred to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
It is brought to our notice that in an appeal of similar nature, the Court has condoned the delay of 372 days in filing the appeal.
Having considered this fact and also looking to the averments contained in this application especially looking to the fact that the cause is pending consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in the instant matter also.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Order on Memo of Appeal It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the law laid down by a Single Bench of this Court in Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2013 (1) UPLBEC 758 is not a good law in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 17.12.2015 passed in Abhishek Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others and further that merely grant of any interim relief against that judgment by the Supreme Court anyone in Special Leave Petition would not make the respondent-petitioner entitled to get his case examined as per the law laid down in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra).
Having considered the arguments advanced, we deem it appropriate to admit the appeal.
Accordingly, the same is admitted for hearing.
Let this appeal be listed for final disposal in the month of October, 2019.
Till then, the effect and operation of the directions given under the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by Learned Single Bench in Service Single No. 6447 of 2000 shall remain stayed."
4. The respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition as referred hereinabove seeking quashing of an order dated 25.10.2000 by which the District Inspector of Schools, Unnao had declined to approve his selection and appointment as LT Grade Teacher in the respondent no. 2-Institution. Apart from it, other reliefs were also sought. The relief clauses are quoted herein below:-
"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated 25.10.2000, contained in annexure no. 15, passed by the opposite party no. 3.
(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 and specifically the opposite party no. 3 to accord the approval to the post and salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 21.10.2000 and to pay the petitioner his salary along with his arrears of salary from the aforestated date till date alongwith the admissible allowances and increments as and when they fall due for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in the college of the opposite party no.1.
(c) issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commandi
