# Anita Rani v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1401 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-01-27 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 646 of 2025 - **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh, Indrajeet Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anita-rani-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54050 - **Pages:** 7 ## Text 1 All. Anita Rani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1401 26. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award of the tribunal dated 30.04.2016 is modified to the above extent. 27. If any amount has been paid by U.P.S.R.T.C. previously, then it is entitled to adjust the amount accordingly. U.P.S.R.T.C. is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before the concerned tribunal within two months. The tribunal will be at liberty to proportionally award the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants keeping in view their age and dependency. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 1401 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. THE HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. Special Appeal No. 646 of 2025 Anita Rani ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration Whether the appointment of the appellant on the post of Assistant Teacher, found to be void-ab-initio on account of being over-age under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, could be interfered with and protected on equitable considerations in absence of fraud or misrepresentation and after long continuance in service. Headnotes Service Law - Appointment - Assistant Teacher - Age limit - U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Over-age candidate - Validity of appointment: Held: The appellant was over-age on the relevant dates, namely completion of training, submission of application and appointment and, therefore, ineligible under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1981 - The benefit of relaxation under the third proviso was not available since the outer age limit had already been crossed - Consequently, the appointment was void-ab-initio. [Paras 9-12] Service Law - Irregular appointment - No fraud or misrepresentation - Equity - Long continuance in service: Held: The appellant had disclosed her correct date of birth and had neither practised fraud nor misrepresentation and the error in permitting her participation and appointment was attributable to the authorities - The appellant having continued in service for about seven years, equitable considerations arose in her favour - In such circumstances, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of irregular appointments not tainted by fraud, limited protection was warranted. [Paras 13-17] Service Law - Relief - Balancing of equities - Continuance in service - Denial of back wages: Held: While setting aside the impugned orders, it was directed that the appellant shall be permitted to continue in service, but shall not be entitled to salary for the period she had not worked, so as to balance equities between the parties. [Para 18] 1402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Appeal partly allowed. (E-14) Case Law Cited Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, (2024) 11 SCC 770 - relied on; Vikas Pratap Singh and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 - relied on. List of Acts / Statutes U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981; Government Order dated 29.10.2015. List of Keywords Age limit; Over-age appointment; Void-ab-initio appointment; Equity; No fraud; Long service; Irregular appointment; Protection of service; Assistant Teacher. Case Arising From Judgment and order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 19644 of 2023, affirming order dated 28.10.2023 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad cancelling the appellant's appointment. Appearance for Parties For the Appellant: Sri Siddharth Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Umang Srivastava For the Respondents: Smt. Akanksha Sharma, C.S.C.; Sri Ankit Gaur, Standing Counsel (Delivered by Hon'ble Indrajeet Shukla, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Umang Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 and, Mr. Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present intra-Court appeal has arisen against the order of learned Single Judge dated 08.05.2025 in Anita Rani versus State of U.P. and 4 others, Neutral Citaion:-2025:AHC:74204 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing as follows:- "11. In view of above, the relevant dates are (I) date of completion of Special BTC Course, (ii) date of submission of form for recruitment process and (iii) date of appointment. 12. In present case, petitioner has completed Special BTC Training course on 12.06.2012 and advertisement was issued on 19.12.2014 i.e. after 2 years and 6 months and 7 days. The petitioner was a Scheduled Caste candidate, therefore, a relaxation of 5 years was granted in maximum age limit i.e. 45 years and she can apply after adding 2 years 6 months and 7 days i.e. up to 47 years 6 months 21 days as on cut off date i.e. 01.07.2014 taking into consideration that course was concluded on 12.06.2012 and application was submitted on 01.07.2014, but she was about 48 years 2 months, therefore, she was not entitled to apply as well as she was granted appointment on 02.07.2016, when she has crossed maximum age of 50 years, therefore, her appointment was void-ab-initio. 13. In aforesaid circumstances, since above referred facts are undisputed, therefore, in terms of G.O. dated 29.10.2015, the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the recruitment process itself and therefore, illegally appointed, therefore, there is no ground to cause interference in impugned order whereby her appointment was declared void-ab-initio." 1 All. Anita Rani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1403 3. Facts, which reflect from the record, are that the appellant was selected for Special Basic Training Certificate in the year 2008, however, she could complete said training on 05.06.2012. Subsequently, she passed her U.P.T.E.T. Examination on 24.05.2014. No recruitment process of Special BTC Trained Candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers was immediately commenced. 4. It is on 09.12.2014, State of U.P. issued a notification for recruitment of 15000 Assistant Teachers from Special BTC Trained candidates wherein the appellant applied and got appointment on 02.07.2016, however, on 20.12.2017, a notice was issued to the appellant requiring her to explain that as the appellant had completed the age of more than fifty years on the date of appointment, i.e., 02.07.2016, her appointment was liable to be cancelled. A reply to the said notice was filed, however, vide order dated 28.10.2023 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, the appointment of the appellant was declared void-ab-initio. 5. Feeling aggrieved, appellant preferred Writ-A No. 19644 of 2023, which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order impugned herein. 6. The record transpires that as per the notification/advertisement dated 09.12.2014 issued for the post in question, the last date for submission of the application form was 10.02.2015 and in pursuance to aforesaid notification, the petitioner applied for the post in question on 05.01.2015. The age of the original petitioner/appellant herein was 48 years 8 months 4 days on the date of submission of application form. The case of the appellant is that she is entitled for age relaxation of 2 years six months 21 days in terms of Third Proviso appended to Rule 6 contained in Part IV of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (For sake of brevity hereinafter shall be referred as "Rules of 1981"). 7. For ready reference relevant portion of Rules of 1981 are extracted as under:- Part IV - Qualification 6. आयु नियम 5 िे खण्ड (ि) या खण्ड (ख) िे उपखण्ड (तीि) और (चार) या नियम 5 िे खण्ड (ख) िे परन्तुि में निनदयष्ट निसी पद पर भती िे नलए अभ्यर्थी िी आयु उस वर्य िे नजस वर्य सीधी भती िे नलए ररनक्त नवज्ञानि िी जाये, अिुवती वर्य िी प्रर्थम जुलाई िो 21 वर्य िी होिी चानहए और 40 वर्य से अनधि िहीं होिी चानहए : परन्तु यह नि अिुसूनचत जानतयों, अिुसूनचत जिजानतयों तर्था अन्य नपछड़े वगों िे अभ्यनर्थयों िे मामले में उच्चतर आयु सीमा 5 वर्य या उतिे वर्य अनधि होगी नजतिी राज्य सरिार द्वारा समय-समय पर उपबनन्धत िी जाये : परन्तु यह और नि उच्चतर आयु सीमा निसी अभ्यर्थी िे मामले में जो भूतपूवय सैनिि है तीि वर्य से अनधि या जैसे नि समय-समय पर सरिार द्वारा उपबांनधत िी जाये, होगी : परन्तु यह भी नि नविलाांग अभ्यर्थी िे मामले में उच्चतर आयु सीमा 15 वर्य अनधि होगी : 1404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES परन्तु यह भी नि जहाां बेनसि स्िूलों िे अध्यापिों िे नलए नवनहत प्रनशक्षण पाठ्यक्रम िो सफलतापूवयि पूरा िरिे िे पश्चात् निसी अभ्यर्थी िो नजले में ररनक्त उपलब्ध ि होिे िे िारण नियुनक्त ि नमल सिी हो वहाां उसिी आयु िी सांगणिा िे नलए उतिी अवनध िो जब ति उसे नियुनक्त ि नमली हो, िहीं नगिा जायेगा, यनद नियुनक्त िे नदिाांि िो उसिे 50 वर्य से अनधि आयु प्राि ि िी हो : परन्तु यह और भी नि उच्चतर आयु सीमा बी.एड./ एल.टी./बी.पी.एड./ सी.पी.एड. या डी.पी.एड. प्रनशनक्षत अभ्यनर्थयों िे मामले में नजन्होंिे वर्य 1999 में नवशेर् बी.टी.सी. प्रनशक्षण पाठ्यक्रम पूरा िर नलया हो, लागू िहीं होगी : परन्तु यह भी नि उदूय में प्रवीणता रखिे वाले और नद्ववर्ीय बी.टी.सी. उदूय िे नवशेर् प्रनशक्षण पाठ्यक्रम पूणय िर लेिे वाले या नवनशष्ट या नवशेर् बी.टी.सी. प्रनशक्षण पाठ्यक्रम पूणय िर लेिे वाले निसी अभ्यर्थी िे मामले में उच्चतर आयु सीमा ऐसी होगी जैसा नि सरिार द्वारा समय-समय पर अवधाररत निया जाये : परन्तु यह और भी नि मोअनललम-ए-उदूय उपानध धारिों िे मामले में, नजन्होंिे नदिाांि 11 अगस्त, 1997 से पहले ऐसी उपानध प्राि िर ली हो, उच्चतर आयु सीमा अनधवनर्यता िी आयु से अनधि िहीं होगीः परन्तु यह और भी नि प्रनशक्षु नशक्षि िे रूप में, अभ्यनर्थयों िे चयि िे नलए उच्चतर आयु सीमा, ऐसी होगी, जैसी नि सरिार द्वारा समय-समय पर अवधाररत िी जाये : परन्तु यह और भी नि नशक्षानमि िे मामले में अनधितम आयु सीमा 60 वर्य ति होगी।." 8. The advertisement in question was issued on 09.12.2014 and the appellant could complete the requisite training on 05.06.2012, thus, she claims benefit of 2 years 6 months 2 days relaxation in terms of 3rd Proviso of Rule 6 of the 1981 Rules. 9. It is not in dispute that on the date of completion of training of B.T.C. Course i.e. 5th June, 2012, the appellant was 46 years 1 month 4 days old, thus at the time of completion of Special B.T.C. Course itself she had crossed 45 years of age. In such factual position, the relaxation contained in 3rd Proviso appended to Rule 6 of 1981 Rules is of no assistance for her, as neither on the date of completion of B.T.C. Course nor on the date of publication of advertisement, the appellant having more than 45 years of age was eligible, having crossed outer age limit fixed by the statutory rules. 10. The perusal of advertisement/notification dated 09.12.2014 brought on record exhibits upper age limit for the post in question is not prescribed/mentioned in the notification but even in such a situation the relevant rules i.e. 'Rules of 1981' as indicated in notification itself, would govern and operate the field of eligibility/prescribing outer age limit. 11. The case of the respondents is that apart from B.T.C. course the appellant was also required to pass T.E.T. examination for applying the post in question. The B.T.C. course was 1 All. Anita Rani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1405 completed by the appellant on 05.06.2012, whereas she passed the T.E.T. examination on 24.05.2014 as such on both the dates, appellant-writ petitioner crossed the outer age limit prescribed for the post in question in terms of conjoint reading of Rules of 1981 and notification dated 09.12.2014 and even on the date of appointment i.e. on 02.07.2016, she was above 50 years, which is again in the teeth of 'Rule 6 of 1981 Rules' as well as Circular dated 29.10.2015 contained as Annexure C.A.3 to the counter affidavit. 12. Submission advanced on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner is that the appellant is a reserved category candidate (Scheduled Caste) and for her, there is a relaxation of 5 years in upper age limit. Thus, she could apply for the post in question till she attained the age of 45 years. If relaxation of further 2 years 6 months 21 days by virtue of 3rd Proviso of Rule 6 of 1981 Rules is extended, even then the maximum permissible age limit would be 47 years 6 months 21 days, whereas the appellant was of 48 years 7 months and 8 days on the date of submission of her application form. Thus, the appellant-writ petitioner was over the age limit on the date of submission of her application, making her ineligible to apply for the post in question, nonetheless, it is abundantly clear as day light that the respondent authorities accepted the application form and offered appointment with open eyes. 13. Further submission is, attempt to file an application for securing job cannot be termed as to be any fraudulent act as admittedly correct date of birth was mentioned in the application form and nothing was concealed at the end of the appellant. It was the authorities, who ought to have been remained vigilant, which they utterly failed. In response to application form tendered, not only the registration was accepted, but the e-Chalan was also generated permitting the appellant to deposit requisite examination fee. Thereafter, an appointment was offered to the appellant, despite the appellant having crossed the maximum age limit at the time of submitting the application form as well as on the date of completion of B.T.C. Training Course. 14. Learned Senior Counsel strenuously urged that the respondents cannot be permitted to annul the appointment at a belated stage, i.e. after lapse of more than 7 years as the appointment was made on 2nd July, 2016 and the order of termination has been passed on 28.10.2023. 15. The counsel for the appellant in order to get the appointment saved has specifically relied upon paragraph nos.26 & 27 of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Radhey Shyam Yadav Versus State of U.P. and others reported in (2024) 11 SCC 770 wherein the appointment of appellant therein having served 6 years was saved as same was not result of fraud and misrepresentation. For ready reference paragraph nos. 26 & 27 of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav (supra) are extracted as under:- "26. In Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), this Court, while protecting the selection of the appellants, had the following to say:- "27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result 1406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon reevaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service." 27. Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) was followed in Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2021) 5 SCC 424. This Court, in para 11, held as follows:- "11. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the writ petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the writ petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the writ petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the writ petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the writ petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh case where this Court considered that the appellants therein were appointed due to an error committed by the respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the appellants therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the writ petitioners are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh case, we are in agreement with the High Court that the writ petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of contempt, the writ petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present." 16. We are persuaded to grant limited indulgence in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhatisgarh and others, 2013 (14) SCC 494. Paragraph-22 of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) is extracted hereunder:- "The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or malafide. (See: District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100). It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors.,(2002) 4 SCC 726; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667). " 1 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sonu Kumar & Ors. 1407 17. Therefore, in view of facts of this case as noted above, viz. continuance of appellant-writ petitioner for considerable period of 7 years coupled with the fact that the respondent authority could not lay any foundation of fraud and manipulation practised by appellant-writ petitioner to secure the appointment and further error of judgement if any (in computing the correct age of the petitioner) was of the respondents, that aspect may have escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge. To the extent, an error on principle may have been caused in the order of the learned Single Judge, thus, the instant Special Appeal as well as Writ Petition deserve to be partly allowed. The order dated 08.05.2025 passed by Writ Court, which is impugned herein as well as the order dated 28.10.2023 passed by respondent no.3, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Moradabad are set-aside. 18. In order to balance equities in facts of this case, we direct that the appellant shall be permitted to continue to hold the post in question, but she shall not be entitled to the payment of salary for the period she has not performed her duties/ remained out of service. 19. A copy of this order may also be kept with the record of the writ petition. 20. No order as to costs. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 1407 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. First Appeal from Order No. 103 of 2026 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Sonu Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal required interference on the basis of site plan and material on record; (ii) Whether the amount reimbursed to the claimant under a mediclaim policy was liable to be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Headnotes Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Accident - Negligence - Contributory negligence - Evidentiary value of site plan: Held: The question of negligence is to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced before the Tribunal and not merely on the basis of site plan prepared in criminal proceedings - Mere reliance on site plan to infer manner of accident or negligence is impermissible - Even if the claimant was overtaking from the left side, it cannot by itself establish contributory negligence - In absence of cogent evidence, contributory negligence cannot be enhanced - The finding of the Tribunal on contributory negligence was not liable to be interfered with in absence of cross appeal by the claimant. [Paras 14-15]