# Aditya Kumar & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 1056
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-08
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18036 of 2025
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aditya-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52786
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
create any interest in favour of the third
party of the premises in dispute;

(e) It is made clear that in case of
default of any of the conditions mentioned
herein-above, the protection granted by this
Court shall stand vacated automatically.

(f) In case the premises is not
vacated as per the undertaking given by
tenants-petitioners, they shall also be liable
for contempt."

118. Lastly, S.C.C. Revision No. 44 of
2024 also fails and stands dismissed on the
ground that suit filed by landlord is not
barred under Section 38 of the Act of 2021.
The court below to proceed with S.C.C.
Suit No. 10 of 2022 and decide the same,
within next six months.

119. Before parting with the judgment,
the Court records word of appreciation for
the valuable assistance provided by Sri
Vishnu Gupta, learned Senior Counsel and
young counsel, Sri Kunal Shah.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1056
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ A No. 18036 of 2025

Aditya Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioners'
claim for appointment on the post of
Assistant
Teacher
on
compassionate
ground, in view of the judgment in
Shailendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and
others and the consequential Office Order
dated
22.08.2025,
was
liable
to
be
interfered with on the ground that certain
other
persons
were
granted
similar
appointments.

Headnotes
Compassionate Appointment - Assistant
Teacher - Government Orders dated
04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 - Struck
down by Co-ordinate Bench - Parity -
Negative equality - Article 14 - Writ
dismissed.

HELD:
The claim of the petitioners for compassionate
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher
was rejected in view of the judgment dated
16.04.2025 passed in Shailendra Kumar v. State
of U.P. and others, wherein the Government
Orders dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013,
insofar as they related to appointment on the
posts of teachers on compassionate grounds,
were struck down and the State Government
was directed to cease their implementation. The
said judgment had attained finality. [Paras 4, 8,
11]

The contention of the petitioners that certain
persons had been granted appointment on
compassionate ground in other districts could
not be accepted. It is well settled that if any
illegal or unwarranted order has been passed in
favour of any person, such order cannot form
the basis for issuing a writ compelling the
authority to repeat the illegality. Article 14 does
not envisage negative equality. [Paras 8-10]
Wrongful conferment of a right on one person
does not entitle another to claim similar benefit.
The Court cannot direct perpetuation of an
illegality merely on the ground of parity. [Paras
8-10]

The petitioners had also not challenged the
Office Order dated 22.08.2025 issued by the
Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj,
on the basis of which their claim had been
rejected. [Para 11]

In view of the above, no case for interference
was made out and the writ petition was
dismissed. [Paras 11-12]
12 All. Aditya Kumar & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
1057
Petition dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Chandigarh Administration and another v.
Jagjit Singh and another, (1995) SCC 745
- relied on; Tinku v. State of Haryana and
others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3292 - relied
on; Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of
Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 117 - relied
on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009; Constitution of India;
Dying in Harness Rules, 1999.

List of Keywords
Compassionate appointment; Assistant Teacher;
Negative equality; Article 14; Parity; Illegal
order.

Case Arising From
Order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the District
Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur, rejecting the
petitioners'
claim
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground on the post of Assistant
Teacher.

Appearance for Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Ashok Khare, Senior
Advocate, Assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare
For Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Learned Standing
Counsel
For Respondent Nos.3 & 4: Sri Shivendra
Singh Bhadauria

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2
and Sri Shivendra Singh Bhadauria, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4.

2. The order dated 14.11.2025 passed
by the District Basic Education Officer,
Fatehpur/respondent No.4 by which the
claim of the petitioners for grant of
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher on compassionate ground has been
rejected is under challenge.

3. Facts and brief as contained in the
writ petition are that Shiv Kant Pal who is
father of the petitioner No.1/Aditya Kumar
had been died on 26.04.2021 while
working on the post of Assistant Teacher in
Uchch
Prathmik
Vidyalay
Khairha
Development
Block
Haswa,
District
Fatehpur and Indrajeet Singh, who is father
of petitioner No.2/Yogendra Singh were
had been died on 28.04.2021 while
working on the post of Head Master of
Prathmik Vidyalay Gadhi Development
Block Asthar District Fatehpur. Since the
petitioners
are
having
requisite
qualification, they submitted applications
for their appointment on the post of
Assistant
Teacher,
The
aforesaid
applications have been rejected pursuant to
the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this
Court in Writ A No.15450 of 2024
(Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others). Aggrieved with the aforesaid order,
the petitioners filed Writ A No.15439 of
2025 (Aditya Kumar And Another Vs.
Sttate of U.P. and others). The aforesaid
writ petition was disposed of by this Court
vide order dated 29.10.2025 permitting the
petitioner
to
submit
an
application
physically to the District Basic Education
Officer, Fatehpur within a period of one
week and District Basic Education Officer,
Fatehpur had directed to consider and
decide the claim of the petitioners by
passing a reasoned and speaking order
physically, and not through the online
portal within a period of three weeks, copy
of the aforesaid judgement is appended as
Annexure No.9 to the writ petition.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the
respondent No.4/District Basic Education
Officer, Fatehpur has passed the order
impugned rejecting the claim of the
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners on the basis of the judgement
and order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this
Court in bunch of writ petitions being
leading number Writ A No.15450 of 2024
(Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others). Hence the present petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for
the respondent that in the judgement and
order dated 16.04.2025 passed by this
Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar
(supra), it is clearly held by this Court that
no compassionate appointment could be
granted on the post of Assistant Teachers.
The direction given by this Court in the
aforesaid order reads as follows:-

IX. Conclusions and Directions:

119. In the wake of preceding
discussion, the following conclusions are
being
recorded
and
corresponding
directions are being issued to the State
Authorities:

(A). The Government Orders
dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar
as they relate to appointment on the posts
of teachers on compassionate grounds are
held to be ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and
21-A of the Constitution of India.

(B). The Government Orders
dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar
as they relate to appointment on the posts
of teachers on compassionate grounds are
violative of Section 3 of the Right to
Education Act, 2009 which vests the right
of free and compulsory education in
children.

(C). The Government Orders
dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar
as they relate to appointment on the posts
of teachers on compassionate grounds are
in conflict with the mandate of Rule 5 of the
Dying in Harness Rules, 1999.

(D). The Government Orders
dated 04.09.2000 and 15.02.2013 insofar
as they provide for appointment on the
posts
of
teachers
on
compassionate
grounds are struck down. The State
Government is accordingly directed to
forthwith cease the implementation of the
Government Orders dated 04.09.2000 and
15.02.2013.

(E). The matter is remitted to
respondents-authorities. The claim of the
petitioner shall be considered by the
respondents-authorities for appointment on
compassionate grounds to any other post
as per law and in line with the observations
made in this judgement. The decision shall
be taken by the respondents-authorities
within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.

120. The writ petition is finally
disposed of.

121. Registry is directed to send a
copy of this order to the Principal
Secretary, Department of Basic Education,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

5. It is argued that on the basis of the
aforesaid judgement, Office Order had
been issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic
Education Board, Prayagraj on 22.08.2025
and pursuant to the aforesaid judgement
and Office Order, the claim of the
petitioners have been rightly rejected by the
respondent No.4.

6. On the other hand, it is argued by
learned Senior Counsel as stated in
paragraph 31 of the writ petition that
12 All. Aditya Kumar & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
1059
though the claim of the petitioners have
been rejected on the ground that no
compassionate
appointment
could
be
granted pursuant to the judgement passed
by this Court but the respondent-authorities
had granted appointments to various
persons on the post of Assistant Teachers
on the compassionate ground in the month
of June to September, 2025. It is further
stated that in different districts, various
persons have been appointed on the post of
Assistant Teachers on the compassionate
ground in the month of June to September,
2025. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is
argued that clear discrimination has been
made with the petitioners.

7. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

8. From perusal of the order dated
14.11.2025 passed by the District Basic
Education
Officer,
Fatehpur/respondent
No.4, it is clear that claim for grant of
compassionate appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher has been rejected in view
of the law laid down by this Court by a Coordinate Bench in the case of Shailendra
Kumar (supra). It is admitted between the
parties that the aforesaid judgement has
been attained finality between the parties.
Insofar as the arguments raised by learned
Senior Counsel regarding the parity of
other employees who had been granted
similar benefit is concerned, the law is well
settled that in case, any order has been
passed in favour of any person and the
same is contrary to law, such illegal or
unwarranted order cannot be made the
basis of issuing a writ compelling the
respondent-authority to repeat the illegality
or to pass another illegal order. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chandigarh Administration and another
Vs. Jagjit Singh and another reported in
(1995) SCC 745 has held that if the order in
favour of the other person is found to be
contrary to law or not warranted in the facts
and circumstances of his case, it is obvious
that such illegal or unwarranted order
cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ
compelling the respondent-authority to
repeat the illegality or to pass another
unwarranted order. The relevant portion of
the aforesaid order reads as follows:-

".... If the order in favour of the
other person is found to be contrary to law
or not warranted in the facts and
circumstances of his case, it is obvious that
such illegal or unwarranted order cannot
be made the basis of issuing a writ
compelling the respondent-authority to
repeat the illegality or to pass another
unwarranted order. The extraordinary and
discretionary power of the High Court
cannot be exercised for such a purpose.
Merely because the respondent-authority
has passed one illegal/unwarranted order,
it does not entitle the High Court to compel
the authority to repeat that Illegality over
again and again. The illegal/unwarranted
action must be corrected, if it can be done
according to law indeed, wherever it is
possible, the Court should direct the
appropriate authority to correct such
wrong orders in accordance with law but
even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult
to see how it can be made a basis for its
repetition. By refusing to direct the
respondent-authority
to
repeat
the
Illegality, the Court is not condoning the
earlier illegal act/order nor can such
illegal order constitute the basis for a
legitimate complaint of discrimination...."

9. Apart from the same, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tinku Vs.
State of Haryana and others reported in
2024 SCC Online SC 3292 has opined that
1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wrongful conferment of a right or claim on
someone would not title a similar claim to
be put forth before a court and nor would
the court be bound to accept such a plea.
The relevant paragraph is extracted below:

The
very
idea
of
equality
enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed
in positivity based on law. It can be invoked
to enforce a claim having sanctity of law.
No direction can, therefore, be issued
mandating the State to perpetuate any
illegality or irregularity committed in
favour of a person, an individual, or even a
group of individuals which is contrary to
the policy or instructions applicable.
Similarly, passing of an illegal order
wrongfully conferring some right or claim
on someone does not entitle a similar claim
to be put forth before a court nor would
court be bound to accept such plea. The
court will not compel the authority to
repeat that illegality over again. If such
claims are entertained and directions
issued, that would not only be against the
tenets of the justice but would negate its
ethos resulting in the law being a causality
culminating in anarchy and lawlessness.
The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it
overlook the same to confer a right or a
claim that does not have legal sanction.
Equity cannot be extended, and that too
negative to confer a benefit or advantage
without legal basis or justification."

10. Reference for the purpose can also
be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jyostnamayee Mishra v.
State of Odisha reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 117 . The relevant extract is
reproduced herein below:

"31. Another argument was raised
while referring to two communications dated
28.06.1999 appointing Ms. Jhina Rani
Mansingh and Sri Lalatendu Rath as Tracer
on promotion, claiming to be from the post of
Peon, on the basis of which the petitioner is
claiming violation of Article 14, namely the
discrimination. Suffice to add, this Court
cannot put a stamp on the illegalities
committed
by
the
department
while
perpetuating the same. A litigant coming to
the
Court
cannot
claim
negative
discrimination seeking direction from the
Court to the department to act in violation of
the law or statutory Rules. It is a settled
proposition of law that Article 14 does not
envisage negative equality. Reference for the
purpose can be made to a judgment of this
Court in R. Muthukumar v. The Chairman
and
Managing
Director
TANGEDCO.
Relevant para thereof is extracted below:

"28. A principle, axiomatic in this
country's constitutional lore is that there is no
negative equality. In other words, if there has
been a benefit or advantage conferred on one
or a set of people, without legal basis or
justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or
be relied upon as a principle of parity or
equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, this court ruled that:

"8. It is a settled legal proposition
that Article 14 of the Constitution is not
meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even
by extending the wrong decisions made in
other cases. The said provision does not
envisage negative equality but has only a
positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly
situated persons have been granted some
relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake,
such an order does not confer any legal right
on others to get the same relief as well. If a
wrong is committed in an earlier case, it
cannot be perpetuated."

11. From perusal of the record, it is
clear that claim of the petitioner seeking
12 All. Rajesh Singh Vs. Board of Governers, M.N.N.I.T. & Anr.
1061
appointment on compassionate ground was
rejected on the ground that order passed by
this Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar
(supra)
and
the
Office
order
dated
22.08.2025 issued by the Secretary, U.P.
Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. For the
reasons best known to the petitioners, they
have not challenged the Office order dated
22.08.2025 issued by the Secretary, U.P.
Basic Education Board, Prayagraj in the
present petition. Insofar as the claim of the
petitioners that some persons have been
granted appointment on the post of
Assistant
Teachers
on
compassionate
ground is concerned, it has already been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated
above that in case any wrong or contrary
order has been passed by the authority,
such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be
made the basis of issuing a writ compelling
the respondent-authority to repeat the
illegality or to pass another unwarranted
order.

12. In this view of the matter, petition
lacks merits and the same is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1061
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 19080 of 2006

Rajesh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Governers, M.N.N.I.T & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(i)
Whether
the
disciplinary
proceedings
culminating in the order dated 28.02.2006
dismissing the petitioner from service were
vitiated for non-compliance with the procedure
prescribed in the Resolution adopted by the
Board of Governors on 04.05.2004; and
(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal with
disqualification, imposed on the ground of
immoral conduct arising out of a consensual
relationship between a teacher and his student,
was disproportionate.

Headnotes
Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings -
Procedure prescribed by Resolution dated
04.05.2004
-
One
Man
Inquiry
Commission
-
Natural
justice
-
Consensual relationship - Teacher and
student
-
Standard
of
morality
-
Disproportionate punishment - Matter
remanded on quantum of punishment.

Held:

The Resolution adopted by the Board of
Governors on 04.05.2004 prescribes a detailed
procedure
for
conducting
disciplinary
proceedings, including issuance of charge-sheet,
statement of imputations, list of witnesses and
documents, appointment of Inquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer, and adherence to principles
of natural justice. Admittedly, such procedure
was not followed in the present case and no
charge-sheet in terms thereof was issued.
[Paras 13-14]

The disciplinary action was based on a report of
a One Man Inquiry Commission headed by a
former Judge of this Court. Though the detailed
procedure prescribed in the Resolution was not
followed, the petitioner had appeared before the
Commission, submitted reply, and substantially
admitted the relationship with the complainant.
In the facts of the case, it was held that nonfollowing of the detailed procedure did not
cause such prejudice to the petitioner so as to
vitiate the findings of misconduct. [Paras 15-16]

The relationship between the petitioner, a
Lecturer, and the complainant, a student,
though consensual and continued even after she
left the Institution for about three years, was
found by the Commission to be immoral and
contrary to the expected standard of conduct of
a teacher. [Paras 4, 15]