# Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 958
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-27
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11217 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-prakash-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54085
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the evidence of Bachha Ji Shah as it was not corroborated by the witness of PW-1 Sri N.K. Yadav.
The trial court also found the recovery memo suspicious. The trial court also acquitted the
petitioner and co-accused Ram Raksha by extending the benefit of doubt. In the judgment the
incident was allegedly found doubtful and the court gave a finding that the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.

27. In the present case, it appears that the impugned penalties were inflicted upon an employee for
the same misconduct. One penalty was given in the year 2004 on culmination of the disciplinary inquiry
against the employee, despite his acquittal in criminal charges om relation to the same misconduct and
the other penalty was given by the impugned corrigendum letter dated 3/4/2023 without holding further
inquiry a fresh for the proposed punishment by giving retrospective effect to the earlier punishment
granted in the year 2004. It is also not clear as to whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner while inflicting the penalty of cancelling MACPs granted to him, subsequent to the infliction
of the penalty for said misconduct way back to the year 2004, no statutory provisions have been cited in
support of issuance the impugned corrigendum letter, dated 3/4/2023 as to why the penalty shown in the
said letter has been inflicted upon the petitioner after a gap of 19 years in culmination of departmental
proceedings against the petitioner in which a major penalty was inflicted upon him withholding annual
increments for 5 years with cumulative effect, even after ignoring the acquittal of the petitioner in
criminal charges based on the same misconduct. In the absence of any statutory empowerment, it
appears contrary to law to cancel two MACPs granted in the year 2010 and 2019 after conclusion of
departmental inquiry by giving retrospective effect to the penalty imposed in the departmental
proceedings way back in the year 2004, after lapse of 19 years by impugned order dated 03/04/2023,
that too when the criminal court had already acquitted the petitioner for said charge based on same set of
facts and that judgment of criminal court had attained finality.

28. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion and according due consideration of judicial
authorities cited above, the impugned corrigendum letter, dated 3/4/2023, is quashed. The
respondents are directed to grant benefit of MACP-I and MACP- II to the petitioner within three
months in view of the earlier orders, dated 14/12/2010 and 14/1/2019, issued by them, whereby
MACP-I and MACP-II were granted to the petitioner, respectively.

29. Consequently, the petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 958
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 11217 of 2025

Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1 All. Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
959
Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of de-recognition of an institution to the continuity of teachers and non-teaching staffs working in
that institution.
(2) Permissibility of claim of the employees of de-recognized institution to be adjusted in another institution.
(3) Permissibility of claiming the negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Withholding of payment of salary - Petitioners were appointed on the post of
Assistant Teacher, Clerk and Class IV post in the institution - Approval were also granted and
salary was started to be paid - Subsequently the recognition accorded to the institution was
cancelled, and the salary of the petitioners were also withheld - Writ petition against
cancellation of recognition was dismissed - Effect - Adjustment to another institution was
claimed - Permissibility. (E-1)
Held : Teachers working in an institution whose recognition has been cancelled do not acquire any vested or
enforceable right to claim adjustment or absorption in any other recognized institution. Recognition of an
educational institution constitutes the statutory foundation for the validity of appointments made therein, and
once such recognition is withdrawn, the institution ceases to exist as a recognized entity in the eyes of law.
The appointments of teachers, being co-terminus with recognition, automatically lose their legal sanctity -
Where the statute does not provide for absorption of teachers of a derecognised institution, no right can be
founded merely on the basis that some persons may have been granted such benefit erroneously - Once
recognition is cancelled by the competent authority, the institution ceases to function as a recognised
institution in the eyes of law, and the appointments of teachers, being co-terminus with recognition,
automatically lose their legal sanctity. [Para 42, 43 and 47]
(B). Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to equality - Positive equality and negative
equality - Benefit of illegality provided to another candidate was claimed - Permissibility. (E-1)
Held : Article 14 embodies the doctrine of positive equality and does not countenance the concept of negative
equality. An illegality or irregular benefit extended to any individual does not create a precedent nor confer a
legal right upon others to claim similar treatment - Courts cannot perpetuate an illegality under the guise of
equality. [Para 43]

Case Law Cited
State of Odisha and another vs. Anup Kumar Senapati and another, (2019) 19 SCC 626; State of Bihar v.
Kameshwar Prasad Singh, (2000) 9 SCC 94; Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal, (2010) 2 SCC 422;
Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81; State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao
Roundale and others, (1992) 4 SCC 435. - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 14; Societies Registration Act, 1860; UP Basic Education Act, 1972; UP Junior
High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers & Other Employees) Act, 1978; UP Recognized Basic Schools
(Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978; the UP Recognized Basic
School (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff & Group D Employees)
Rules, 1984 - Rule 15.

List of Keywords
Grant-in-aid, Approval; Deemed approval; Permanent recognition; Revocation; Withholding of salary;
Absorption; Adjustment; Cancellation of recognition; Irregularity; Constitutional jurisprudence; Doctrine of
positive equality; Negative equality; Statutory foundation; Irregular benefit; Legal sanctity; Sympathy;
Reasonable opportunity hearing, Pubic employment, Principle of natural justice.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 04.06.2025 refusing to adjust the petitioners in another institution.

Appearances for Parties
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advs. for the Appellant : Ashok Khare, Sr. Adv.; Aditendra Singh and Siddharth Khare.
Advs. for the Respondents : Anoop Trivedi, Additional Advocate General; Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, ACSC.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit.
Therefore, with consent of the parties this petition is being decided finally without calling for
further affidavits.

2. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aditendra Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:-

'(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated
04.06.2025 passed by the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Lucknow.

(ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to
adjust/absorb the petitioners in some other recognized and aided Junior High School of District
Gorakhpur with all consequential benefits thereof within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble
Court.

(iii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to disburse
the regular monthly salary to the petitioner no.1, 3 and 5 and regular monthly pension to petitioner
no.2 and 4 regularly, every month.

(iv) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to disburse
all arrears of salary from September 2018 to the petitioners within a period to be specified by this
Hon'ble Court including the arrears of pension to petitioner no.2 and 4 within a period to be
specified by this Hon'ble Court.

(v) a writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the circumstances of the case.

(vi) award cost to the humble petitioner throughout of the present writ petition.'

4. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Kishan
Shiksha Prasar Mandal, Gorakhpur, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860, which has established a Junior High School under the name of Baba Surya Narayan Das
Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sirsia, Bhathat, Gorakhpur, which was also receiving grant-in-aid
from the State Government. Accordingly, the aforesaid institution is governed by the provisions of
the UP Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1972'); the UP Recognized
Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules,
1 All. Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
961
1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1978'); the UP Recognized Basic School (Junior High
School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff & Group D Employees) Rules,
1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1984'); and the UP Junior High School (Payment of
Salary to Teachers & Other Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1978').

5. He further submits that the institution in question was brought into the grant-in-aid list by
the Government Order issued on 02.12.2006.

6. The petitioner no.1 was duly selected for the post of Assistant Teacher and was accorded
approval by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, by order dated 18.09.2015. Accordingly, the
Committee of Management of the institution issued an appointment letter dated 10.10.2015,
pursuant to which Petitioner No. 1 joined on 14.10.2015.

7. Petitioner No. 2 was duly selected as an Assistant Teacher, and approval was accorded by
the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari by order dated 13.05.1986. The financial approval was also
granted to the petitioner by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) vide order dated
16.11.2007. Petitioner No. 2 joined the institution on 01.07.1986.

8. Petitioner No. 3 was duly selected and appointed as Clerk, and the relevant papers were
placed before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 20.01.2012, but no orders were passed. As a result, the
selection was deemed approved in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules, 1984. An appointment
order dated 26.02.2012 was issued by the Committee of Management of the institution, pursuant to
which he joined the institution on 01.03.2012.

9. Petitioner No. 4 was duly selected for appointment as a Class-IV employee of the
institution, and the appointment was approved by the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari by order
dated 23.06.1989. Financial sanction for the payment of salary to Petitioner No. 4 was ordered by
the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) vide order dated 31.10.2013.

10. The petitioner no.5 was also selected for appointment as a Class-IV employee. The
approval was accorded by the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, vide order dated
22.11.1991. Financial sanction was granted by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) by order
dated 24.02.2009.

11. The petitioners continued to work in the institution on their respective posts continuously
since the date of their appointments. The petitioners were paid salary from the Government grant
from December 2006 till August 2018. However, the salary of the petitioners was withheld from
the month of August 2018.

12. It appears that some complaint was lodged against the institution/management, on the
basis of which the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Gorakhpur/Basti Division, passed an
order dated 22.04.2017, superseding the Committee of Management and appointing the Khand
Shiksha Adhikari as Authorized Controller. Subsequently, on 05.09.2018, an order was passed by
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur, whereby the permanent recognition accorded by the order
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 02.05.1985 was revoked, and the students studying in the institution were directed to be
adjusted in other institutions.

13. The aforesaid order dated 05.09.2018 was challenged by the Committee of Management
by filing Writ Petition No. 32781 of 2018, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by
judgment and order dated 27.09.2018. The aforesaid order was subsequently challenged in Special
Appeal No. 1184 of 2018, wherein no interim order was passed.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the order dated 05.09.2018 referred
to the adjustment of students in other institutions, it is conspicuously silent with regard to the
adjustment of the staff members of the institution (both teaching and non-teaching).

15. As the salary of the petitioners was withheld from the month of August 2018, they
represented before the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, seeking clarification regarding their
adjustment in other institutions, as was done for the students studying in the institution whose
recognition was revoked.

16. The District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, accordingly sought clarification from the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, who responded through a communication dated 16.10.2018. He also sent a letter
addressed to the Additional Director of Education (Basic), seeking guidance with regard to the
members of the staff of the institution.

17. When nothing was done, the petitioners filed Writ-A No. 26118 of 20181, seeking for a
direction to the authorities to absorb the petitioners in equivalent Junior High Schools in District
Gorakhpur and permit them to function on their respective posts, as they were functioning in the
earlier institution whose recognition was cancelled. They further prayed for the regular payment of
their salary on a month-by-month basis.

18. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order
dated 05.03.2025, wherein the petitioners were permitted to provide all necessary papers and
documents on which they had relied, as well as a copy of the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondents in the aforesaid writ petition before the Director of Education (Basic), Lucknow. Upon
receiving these, the Director of Education (Basic) was expected to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with the law.

19. In compliance with the aforesaid order, a representation dated 18.03.2025 was placed
before the Director of Education (Basic), wherein a notice dated 21.03.2025 was provided to all
concerned, and finally, the representation of the petitioner came to be rejected by the order dated
04.06.2025, which is the order impugned.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order dated 04.06.2025 has
been passed in an arbitrary and discretionary manner, as in an identical circumstance case, teaching
and non-teaching staff have been adjusted in other institutions.
1 All. Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
963

21. He further submits that by the order dated 23.09.2020 issued by the State Government, the
members of the staff and the students of Thakur Shiv Narayan Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Bhagwanpur Bazar, Maharajganj, were directed to be absorbed in an aided Junior High School in
the vicinity.

22. The Government Order dated 15.01.2019 also visualized a rationalization of the staff
members in recognized and aided Junior High Schools, as well as the adjustment of surplus
teachers, which has been ignored in the passing of the impugned order.

23. The impugned order dated 04.06.2025 has been passed in the absence of provisions for
such adjustment in the 1978 Rules. However, when the Rules are silent about absorption, it cannot
be inferred that the petitioners cannot be absorbed in other institutions on their respective posts, as
has been done in similarly situated cases. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed in an
arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

24. It is undisputed that the petitioners were duly appointed members of the staff of the
institution and were receiving their salary regularly from the government grant. The cancellation of
the institution's recognition is not due to any fault of the petitioners; therefore, they cannot be
penalized and are entitled to adjustment in other institutions in their respective posts.

25. The cancellation of the recognition of the institution where the petitioners were appointed,
was beyond their control. Therefore, the order canceling or revoking the institution's recognition,
with a direction for the absorption of students in other institutions, similarly requires that similar
directions be issued for the absorption of the institution's staff members. Hence, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.

26. In the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 26118 of 2018 (Chandra Prakash & 4
Others vs. State of U.P. and Others), it was stated that the then District Basic Education Officer was
awaiting proper directions from the Director of Education (Basic) regarding the absorption of
teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution. However, without waiting for such directions, the
impugned order was passed. Therefore, the order is unjustified in the eyes of the law.

27. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-BSA, it has been specifically
averred that Baba Surya Narayan Das Lower Middle School, Sirsiya, Bhathat, Gorakhpur, was an
aided and recognized Junior High School, having been granted permanent recognition by the
Deputy Director of Education, VIIth Region, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 22.05.1985. The
institution was brought under the grant-in-aid list by the Government Order dated 02.12.2006, and
the salaries of its teaching and non-teaching staff were paid under the provisions of the U.P. Junior
High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978, as amended from
time to time.

28. After receiving a complaint dated 22.01.2016 regarding the fraudulent recognition
obtained by the aforesaid institution, the Chief Development Officer conducted an inquiry, wherein
it was found that Plot No. 173, measuring 0.291 hectare, was recorded as Panchayat Bhawan land
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the revenue records, and the school building, courtyard, and playground were situated upon it,
which is contrary to the relevant rules.

29. A three-member committee was also constituted under the chairmanship of the District
Magistrate, Gorakhpur, which submitted a report in this regard, finding that the school building and
playground were indeed situated on Panchayat land, recorded as Plot No. 173, measuring 0.291
hectare.

30. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gorakhpur, vide letter dated 14.08.2018, informed
that the Manager of the institution had filed a case under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, which was dismissed on merits on 09.08.2018.

31. Subsequently, in Case No. 4184 of 2017 (Gram Sabha vs. Surya Narayan), under Section
87 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Court of the Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, Gorakhpur,
ordered eviction of the institution, namely, Baba Surya Narayan Das L.M.V. from Plot No. 173,
measuring 0.291 hectare, and imposed a compensation of Rs. 19,860/- along with the costs of
execution proceedings.

32. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur,
vide order dated 05.09.2018, withdrew the permanent recognition of the institution and directed
that all the students be transferred to nearby Government institutions, namely P.M.V. Gehari,
P.M.V. Ghosa Deur, and Mudila.

33. The teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution filed Writ Petition No. 26118 of
2018, wherein this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 05.03.2025, directed the Director of Education
(Basic), U.P., Lucknow, to pass an appropriate order on their representation within three weeks
from the date of the order.

34. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the representation of the petitioners was rejected
on 04.06.2025 on the ground that adjustment in any other aided Junior High Schools was not
permissible under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, as amended.

35. In view of the fact that the recognition of the institution in question has been withdrawn on
the basis of forged and false records, the request made by the petitioners, who were teaching and
non-teaching staff of such an institution, could not be considered, as there is no provision for
transfer or adjustment upon the withdrawal of recognition under the 1978 Rules.

36. The writ petition filed against the withdrawal of recognition, being Writ Petition No.
32781 of 2018, has also been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by a detailed and
reasoned order dated 27.09.2018. Thus, in light of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to
adjustment or transfer to any other institutions.

37. The petitioners have also sought adjustment/transfer based on the Government Order dated
15.01.2019, which is misconceived, as the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
1 All. Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
965
The said Government Order pertains only to situations where, due to a fall in student strength,
certain teaching and non-teaching employees of duly recognized and aided institutions are declared
surplus and permitted to draw salary until their superannuation.

38. In the present case, since the recognition of the institution itself was withdrawn due to
serious irregularities found during the inquiry, the petitioners cannot be adjusted or transferred to
any other institution.

39. As regards the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the
Government Letter dated 23.09.2020, wherein the Government directed the District Magistrate,
Maharajganj, to take necessary action in respect of an unauthorizedly constructed school on Gram
Sabha land and to accommodate its staff and students in a nearby aided school, the District Basic
Education Officer, Maharajganj, vide order dated 30.12.2023, issued with the approval of the
District Magistrate, Maharajganj, adjusted one Headmaster and four Assistant Teachers in
Chingudram P.M.V., Kolhui Brijmanganj, and Kisan Junior High School, Mahdeiya Nautanwa,
District Maharajganj. The aforesaid order dated 30.12.2023 was subsequently confirmed by the
office of the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, vide letter dated 14.08.2025, and
reaffirmed by the District Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj, through communication dated
18.08.2025, though during the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
this has not been done as there is no provision under the Rules of 1978, as amended from time to
time, for the adjustment or absorption of teaching and non-teaching staff upon the withdrawal of
recognition of any aided Junior High School.

40. As this Court has taken serious note of the aforesaid issue, to which learned counsel for the
respondents has undertaken to write to the higher authorities regarding the aforesaid fact. However,
counsel also submits that the petitioners cannot claim negative equality for the present relief as
prayed for. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of State of Odisha and another vs. Anup Kumar Senapati and another2.

41. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and perused
the records.

42. It is well settled that teachers working in an institution whose recognition has been
cancelled do not acquire any vested or enforceable right to claim adjustment or absorption in any
other recognized institution. Recognition of an educational institution constitutes the statutory
foundation for the validity of appointments made therein, and once such recognition is withdrawn,
the institution ceases to exist as a recognized entity in the eyes of law. The appointments of
teachers, being co-terminus with recognition, automatically lose their legal sanctity. In the absence
of any express statutory provision, rule, or government policy providing for adjustment or
absorption, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the State authorities or to other recognized
institutions. Claims based on equity, hardship, or length of service cannot override the clear
mandate of law, and courts cannot create service rights by judicial fiat where the statute is silent.

43. The plea of the petitioners seeking adjustment or absorption on the ground that similarly
situated teachers have been accommodated elsewhere is wholly misconceived. It is a settled
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
principle of constitutional jurisprudence that Article 14 embodies the doctrine of positive equality
and does not countenance the concept of negative equality. An illegality or irregular benefit
extended to any individual does not create a precedent nor confer a legal right upon others to claim
similar treatment. Where the statute does not provide for absorption of teachers of a derecognised
institution, no right can be founded merely on the basis that some persons may have been granted
such benefit erroneously. Courts cannot perpetuate an illegality under the guise of equality.

44. In the case of State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh3, the Apex Court has held as
under:-

'30. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a
positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to
have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals,
others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial thereof to 9 them.
Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim
similar benefits. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee
24 held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the
Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens.'

45. In the case of Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal4, the Apex Court has held as
under:-

'Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if
done erroneously cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an
appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment.
An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the
general welfare of the public or a considerable section.'

46. In the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer5, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-

'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. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed
in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an
illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or
a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the
higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for
passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not
entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision.'
1 All. Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
967

47. Recognition of an educational institution is the statutory foundation for its lawful
existence. Appointments of teachers made therein derive their validity solely from such
recognition. Once recognition is cancelled by the competent authority, the institution ceases to
function as a recognised institution in the eyes of law, and the appointments of teachers, being coterminus with recognition, automatically lose their legal sanctity.

48. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that absorption or adjustment is not an
inherent or vested right of an employee. Such right can accrue only when it is expressly provided
by statute, statutory rules, or a specific government policy. In the absence of any such enabling
provision, teachers of a derecognised institution cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the
State authorities or the management of other recognised institutions to absorb or adjust them.

49. Claims founded on sympathy, hardship, or length of service cannot override the clear
mandate of law. Courts cannot create service rights by judicial fiat where the statute is silent. Mere
cancellation of recognition, unlike government-ordered closure or statutory takeover, does not give
rise to any obligation on the part of the State to provide alternative employment.

50. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others6, the
Apex Court has held that appointments in an educational institution are dependent upon its
recognition; once recognition is withdrawn, such appointments cannot subsist.

51. Be that as it may, the teachers of the institution, whose recognition has been cancelled,
have no right to claim absorption or adjustment in other institutions in the absence of statutory
provisions, and equitable considerations cannot be invoked to confer a right contrary to statutory
rules or where statutes are silent on the issue in question.

52. Teachers working in an institution whose recognition has been cancelled cannot, as a
matter of right, claim adjustment or absorption in any other recognised institution. Such relief can
be granted only when expressly authorised by statute or government policy. In the absence thereof,
no legal or enforceable right survives.

53. In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled legal position, the claim of the petitioners
seeking adjustment/absorption in other recognized institutions is wholly misconceived and devoid
of merit. Hence, no interference is called for.

54. However, on the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing
on behalf of the State, this Court directs the Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, to issue appropriate circulars forthwith clarifying that the
absorption or adjustment of teachers, whose parent institution has lost recognition, does not confer
any vested, accrued, or enforceable right, unless such absorption is expressly sanctioned under the
relevant statutory provisions.

55. The Principal Secretary shall undertake a comprehensive scrutiny of all cases where
teachers have been absorbed or adjusted pursuant to the cancellation of recognition of the
institutions in which they were initially appointed. Upon such scrutiny, if it is found that the
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
absorption or adjustment has been made dehors the statutory rules or without authority of law,
necessary corrective action shall be taken strictly in accordance with law.

56. It is made clear that no claim based on equity, sympathy, long continuance in service, or
administrative lapse can be sustained where the initial absorption or adjustment itself is contrary to
statutory provisions. There can be no estoppel against statute, and any action taken in violation of
the governing rules cannot be protected merely on equitable considerations.

57. The Court further observes that permitting such illegal absorptions or adjustments would
be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it would amount to conferring
undue advantage upon certain individuals at the cost of other eligible candidates who may have
been deprived of equal opportunity in public employment. However, before taking any adverse
action, the concerned teachers shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in compliance
with the principles of natural justice.

58. The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the Principal Secretary shall
ensure strict compliance in its true letter and spirit.

59. Registrar Compliance is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary,
Department of Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow as well as Principal
Secretary (Law) & L.R., Government of U.P., Lucknow, for its compliance forthwith.

60. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 968
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 14148 of 2025

Krishna Kant ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Application of principle of constructive res judicata to the maintainability of writ petition filed against
recovery proceeding initiated in pursuance of the earlier termination order, which was confirmed in writ
petition.

Headnotes
(A) Practice and procedure - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Maintainability -
Recovery - Termination order passed earlier was confirmed in writ petition - Special Appeal