Employees appointed on compassionate grounds should be protected through post-adjustment if they possess alternative qualifications, rather than facing termination, especially after long-term service, even if the original specific qualification is later deemed invalid.

1. On 09.03.2026, following order was passed:

"1. The appellate Court on 14.05.2025 while disposing of Special Appeal Defective No. 318 of 2025 passed the following order:-

"(Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2025)

1. Heard.

2. Cause shown for the delay in filing of the special appeal is to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay in filing of the special appeal is condoned.

3. The Delay Condonation Application is, accordingly, allowed.

(Ref: Special Appeal)

1. This special appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 5th December, 2024 in Writ-A No. 16748 of 2021. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 14.9.2021; whereby his salary on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher was stooped. A further prayer was made to command the respondents to release salary to the appellant. The writ petition was pending wherein affidavits were exchanged. The reason for salary to be denied to the appellant was the fact that his qualification of B.Ed. was of Shiksha Alankar from an institution which was not duly recognized.

2. The issue as to whether such qualification could constitute the basis for appointment as L.T. Grade Teacher fell for consideration before a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 29888 of 2011 ( Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. and others ), wherein this Court came to the conclusion that Shiksha Alankar was not a valid qualification and could not be treated as equivalent to B.Ed. for appointment to the post. A direction was issued to stop payment of salary to such persons who had obtained appointment on the strength of such qualification. The judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of V.K. Upadhyay was challenged in Special Appeal No. 1875 of 2011 and was confined to the direction issued for recovery to be made from such teacher. It is to such limited extent that interference was made by the division bench with the direction of learned Single Judge.

3. It appears that the fact that the appellant's qualification was treated as B.Ed. on the strength of his having obtained Shiksha Alankar was noticed later, whereafter his salary was stopped. Notices were also issued to the appellant under Section 16-E(10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 for having falsely represented himself to be possessed of B.Ed. Degree.

4. During pendency of the writ petition, it transpires that proceedings under Section 16(E)10 of the Act of 1921 were ultimately concluded and an order came to be passed by the Director of Education, dated 11.11.2024. In this order the Director has noticed that the appointment of appellant was on compassionate ground as his father was a Principal and had died. The qualification of appellant was examined on the date of his initial appointment, dated 23rd March, 1998. The Director was of the view that though the appellant could not have been appointed on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher, but he was eligible and qualified to be appointed as Arts Teacher and, therefore, his appointment could be protected as such. The Director, in such circumstances, concluded the proceedings vide order dated 11.11.2024.

5. The order of the Director has been placed before the learned Single Judge, who has made observations questioning the rationale to extend compassionate appointment to the appellant. Learned Single Judge has also observed that the appellant was otherwise out of touch with Arts as a subject for 26 years and, therefore, it would be difficult for him to teach such subject. A direction, therefore, has been issued to the Director to revisit the matter.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant