Ved Pati Tripathi loses salary claim as Allahabad High Court finds no valid appointment

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Ved Pati Tripathi, a teacher at Shri Ganesh Sanskrit Pathshala in Gonda, who sought salary from the State exchequer. Justice Irshad Ali held that long continuance in service and subsequent administrative recognition cannot cure the foundational illegality of an appointment where the competent authority had declined approval.

A Teacher's Long Quest for Salary

Ved Pati Tripathi was appointed as Pracharya (Principal) of the aided institution on 8 July 1992. Along with two other assistant teachers, he filed a writ petition in 2005 seeking arrears and regular salary from January 2005. By an interim order dated 8 February 2005, the court directed payment of salary. During the pendency of the petition, one of the petitioners died and another retired.

The petitioners claimed that their selection was approved by Sampurnanand Sanskrit University through various communications. They relied on inquiry reports from 2019 and 2020 that found no irregularity in their appointments. Tripathi had served for about 32 years and maintained a 100% result record.

The Battle of Arguments

Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the appointment date mentioned as 1989 was a typographical error, later amended to 8 July 1992. They contended that the University had repeatedly recognized Tripathi as Principal and that the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) had also recognized him.

Respondent No.5, the Manager of the institution, opposed the claim. It was argued that the original appointment order was never produced, Tripathi was only 17 years old at the time of the alleged appointment in 1989, he did not possess the required educational qualification, and his father was the Manager when he was appointed. Crucially, the University had by an order dated 5 October 1993 declined approval and directed a fresh selection, which was never held.

Why Mere Service Cannot Substitute a Valid Appointment

The court examined whether Tripathi had a legally sustainable appointment. It noted that the University's 1993 order declining approval went "to the root of the controversy." Once a fresh selection was directed, the petitioners were required to show it was conducted. No such evidence was produced.

Regarding the amendment of the appointment date from 1989 to 1992, the court observed: "The amendment may have been permitted procedurally; however, allowing an amendment does not amount to an adjudication upon the truthfulness or legal correctness of the amended assertion."

The court distinguished earlier judgments in Tripathi's favour. Those decisions dealt with the claim of rival candidate Krishna Deo Tripathi to the post of Principal, not the validity of Tripathi's own appointment. "The failure of a rival claimant to establish his own entitlement does not dispense with the independent requirement of the petitioner establishing the legality of his own appointment," the court stated.

Key Observations from the Bench

The court made several significant observations:

"The doctrine of long continuance cannot be invoked to compel the State to make payment from public funds where the foundational legality of the appointment remains unestablished. The Court cannot ignore statutory requirements merely because the petitioner has continued in service for a considerable period."

"An appointment which is required to receive approval of a competent statutory authority cannot ordinarily be transformed into a valid appointment merely by prolonged continuance, particularly where the competent authority had earlier declined approval and had specifically directed that a fresh selection be undertaken."

"The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot issue a mandamus for payment of public money merely because the petitioner claims to have worked for a particular period. The right to receive salary from an aided institution out of public funds is subject to the appointment having the sanction of law and having been made in accordance with the prescribed procedure."

The Final Word

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish the essential legal foundation for issuance of a mandamus. The interim order dated 8 February 2005 was merged with the final order and shall not create any vested right. No costs were awarded.

This ruling reinforces the principle that an appointment made without following statutory procedures or without required approval cannot be validated by length of service or subsequent administrative recognition. It sends a strong message that public funds cannot be claimed without a legally valid appointment.