Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 796

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Smt. Meenakshi Sharma and another – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondent
Writ - A No. 18434 of 2025 Along withWrit - A No. 14225 of 2025
Decided On : 13-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Adarsh Singh, Adwait Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

Administrative authorities cannot reopen settled appointments of long-standing employees based on technical objections. Orders affecting employment status must comply with natural justice, and inquiries must strictly adhere to the specific mandate provided by appellate or reviewing court directions.

Headnote:(A) Basic Education Act - Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers Rules - Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees Act - Appointment of Teachers - Validity of selection proceedings - Once an appointment is approved and an employee has continuously discharged duties for a long period, the authorities cannot unsettle such appointments on technical grounds where the appointment was not tainted by fraud or illegality. (Paras 53, 54, 62)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - The authority is bound by the specific directions of the appellate court and cannot expand the scope of inquiry beyond what has been mandated, especially when previous approvals exist. (Paras 52, 58)

(C) Principles of Natural Justice - Ex-parte order - Any order cancelling an existing appointment or modifying an earlier approval order without affording an opportunity of hearing is violative of the principles of natural justice and is fundamentally arbitrary. (Paras 59, 67)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, appointed as teachers, sought payment of salaries after their institution was brought under government aid. Despite over a decade of service and earlier approvals by the competent committee, the authorities reopened the question of initial selection validity and proceeded to cancel the appointments without notice or hearing, moving beyond the appellate court's directive which was limited solely to the consideration of salary arrears.

Findings of Court:
The authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by re-examining initial qualifications and selection procedures that had already attained finality. Long and uninterrupted service creates a legitimate equity in favour of employees, precluding the administrative bodies from nullifying appointments on belated objections.

Issues: The main issues were whether the authorities possessed the power to review and cancel settled appointments after years of service, and whether the scope of inquiry could be expanded beyond the specific mandate provided by the appellate court.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative authorities lack the inherent power to review previous orders of approval without express statutory authorization. Furthermore, long-standing service, in the absence of fraud, mandates the protection of employment, and the state cannot take advantage of administrative lapses to terminate staff after years of sanctioned employment.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders quashed.

Table of Content
1. recruitment process and formalization of grant-in-aid financial approval. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. litigation history and challenge against administrative orders rescinding appointments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. jurisdictional limits and validity of prior appointment qualifications. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
4. judicial assessment of administrative records and compliance with appellate directions. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
5. protection of long-continued service and limitation on reviewing settled matters. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
6. quashing arbitrary administrative orders and restoring employment benefits. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Radhe Shyam Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been instituted, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 4, namely the Regional Approval Committee under the chairmanship of the Regional Assistant Director, (Basic), Meerut Region, Meerut. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful functioning of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher in Ram Singh Vishwa Chaitanya Kanya Junior High School, Astauli, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. Additionally, a direction has been sought against respondent no. 2 to ensure payment of the current salary to the petitioners in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the institution, namely Ram Singh Vishwa Chaitanya Kanya Junior High School, Astauli, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the institution”), is a duly recognized and aided junior high school. It is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, and the Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978. Two posts of Assistant Teachers, one post of Clerk, and one post of Class-IV employee fell vacant in the year 2006, primarily on account of resignation.

4. He further submits that the Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution sought prior permission from the District Basic Education Officer to fill up the aforesaid vacancies vide letter dated 09.06.2006, which was duly granted by order dated 20.09.2006. Pursuant thereto, the vacancies were advertised in two widely circulated newspapers on 23.09.2006 and 24.09.2006. The petitioners, being duly qualified, applied in response to the said advertisement and participated in the selection process conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee on 05.10.2006. Thereafter, all relevant papers pertaining to the selection proceedings were forwarded by the Manager of the institution to the District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 08.10.2006. The said appointments were accorded approval by order dated 18.11.2006, in pursuance whereof an appointment letter was issued to petitioner no. 1 on the same date appointing her as Assistant Teacher (English).

5. As Ms. Deepti Gaur, who had been selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science), did not join the institution on account of her appointment elsewhere, the Manager of the institution proceeded to issue an appointment letter to petitioner no. 2 on 18.12.2006. The said appointment was duly approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, vide order dated 18.12.2006. In pursuance thereof, petitioner no. 2 joined the post of Assistant Te

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(All) 796

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.Smt. Meenakshi Sharma and another – PetitionerVersus State of U.P. and others – RespondentWrit - A No. 18434 of 2025 Along withWrit - A No. 14225 of 2025Decided On : 13-04-2026

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Smt. Meenakshi Sharma and another – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondent
Writ - A No. 18434 of 2025 Along withWrit - A No. 14225 of 2025
Decided On : 13-04-2026