# Devendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 359
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-28
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 167 of 2024
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53376
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Termination - Post of
Assistant Teacher - Termination order
was passed as appointment was made on
excess
post
-
High
Court
stayed
termination
and
during
the
course
absorption was made on existing post -
Irregularity in earlier appointment, how
far
effect
absorption
-
Held,
the
appellants having been absorbed on
existing vacancies, the irregularity, if
any initially in their appointments,
would be deemed to have been cured -
Mansaram's
case
and
Madras
Aluminium Comp. Ltd.'s case relied
upon. (Para 14)

Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359
petitioner Sri Siddharth Khare, we
are of the considered view that the
petitioner who was a scheduled caste
candidate and was belonging to a village
background though was involved in a
criminal case, there was every possibility
after looking at the nature of the case that
the petitioner had thought that he was
involved only in a civil case. We are also of
the view that while considering such cases,
the atmosphere prevailing in rural villages
should also be taken in account. In our
villages minor civil cases are given the
colour of criminality and quite often the
accused persons are not even aware of the
fact that some criminal proceedings were
going on. Quite often times when there are
many co-accused persons in a particular
case then the case is just looked after by
one of the co-accused. In the instant case,
there were as many as seven co-accused
and there was every possibility that one of
the co-accused was looking after the case.
From the record, we also find that the
petitioner had informed the employers
about the pendency of the criminal case and
this fact had not been denied by the
appellants. We fail to understand as to why
a person would try to deprive himself of his
job and would not give an information
which he possessed. In the instant case, an
information of a trivial nature was not
given out in the verification form and
subsequently, however, that information
was provided.

9. Thus, in view of what has been
stated
above,
we
are
in
respectful
agreement with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge. We refrain ourselves
from interfering in this Special Appeal and
the Special Appeal is thus, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 359
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 167 of 2024
With
Special Appeal No. 200 of 2024

Devendra Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Yogesh Kumar Saxena

A. Service Law - Termination - Post of
Assistant Teacher - Termination order
was passed as appointment was made on
excess
post
-
High
Court
stayed
termination
and
during
the
course
absorption was made on existing post -
Irregularity in earlier appointment, how
far
effect
absorption
-
Held,
the
appellants having been absorbed on
existing vacancies, the irregularity, if
any initially in their appointments,
would be deemed to have been cured -
Mansaram's
case
and
Madras
Aluminium Comp. Ltd.'s case relied
upon. (Para 14)

Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
1. Radhey Shyam Yadav & anr.Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2. Vinod Kumar & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.; (2024)
9 SCC 327
3. Jaggo Vs U.O.I. & ors.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Writ Petition No. 655 (S/S) of 2014; Abhishek
Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. through Secy. & ors.
decided on 17.12.2015
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. The two special appeals are being
decided together as they involve a common
question of law. The appellant-Jujhar Singh
in Special Appeal No.200 of 2024 was
appointed on ad-hoc basis on 31.8.1987 as
an Assistant Teacher in CT grade in the
institution known as P.N.V. Inter College,
Chilli
(Muskara),
Hamirpur.
His
appointment on ad-hoc basis was also
approved on 11.9.1987. Similarly, the
appellant-Devendra
Singh
in
Special
Appeal No.167 of 2024 was appointed on
ad-hoc basis on the post of Assistant
Teacher in CT grade on 26.2.1989. His
appointment
was
also
approved
on
25/26.7.1989. However, the services of
both the appellants were terminated on
17.10.1989 by the District Inspector of
Schools, Hamirpur on the allegation that
the appellants had been posted on such
posts which were in excess of the
sanctioned strength. Aggrieved thereof, the
two appellants jointly filed a writ petition
being Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989
(Jujhar Singh & Anr. vs. District Inspector
of Schools, Hamirpur & Ors.). On
4.12.1989, the High Court in Writ Petition
No.19879 of 1989, passed an interim order
whereby the order dated 17.10.1989 was
kept in abeyance. Thereafter in pursuance
of the interim order granted on 4.12.1989,
the appellants-petitioners continued to
work and also they continued to receive
their salaries. On 31.3.2006, it so happened
that
the
appellants-petitioners
were
absorbed
against
substantively
vacant
posts. The order dated 31.3.2006 is being
reproduced here as under :-
"कायावलय धजला धिद्यालय धनरीक्षक िमीरपुर
आदेश सांख्याः-96 /2005-06 तदनाांक 31.03.06
समायोजन आदेश

उप तशक्षा तनदेशक झाांसी मण्ड्डल झाांसी के
पत्राांक/मा०/10227-29/91-92 तदनाांतकि 05-02-1992
एवां पत्राांक/मा०/10550-51/93-94 तदनाांतकि 28-011994 में तनतहि तनदेशानुसार पी०एन०वी० इण्ड्टर कालेर्ज, तचजली
(मुथकरा) हमीरपुर में थवीकृि सांख्या से अतिक सहायक अध्यापक
(सी०टी०) की तनयुतक्त मानक के आिार पर ित्कालीन तर्जला
तवद्यालय तनरीक्षक हमीरपुर द्वारा की गई िी। ये तनयुतक्तयाां अतनयतमि
होने के कारण तनरथि कर दी गई िी, लेतकन माननीय उच्च
न्द्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा पाररि आदेश तदनाांक 27-10-89 के
अनुपालन में तवद्यालय में कायथरि हैं।

अिः प्रबन्द्िक, पी०एन०वी० इण्ड्टर कालेर्ज तचजली
(मुथकरा) हमीरपुर के पत्राांक/197/पीएि/2005-06 तदनाांक
09-01-2006 के सांदभथ में पी०एन०वी० इ०का० तचजली
(मुथकरा) हमीरपुर के श्री रामािार सहायक अध्यापक के सेवातनवृत्त
के िलथवरूप ररक्त पद पर श्री र्जुझर तसांह सहायक अध्यापक एवां श्री
सूरर्ज प्रसाद तसांह सहायक अध्यापक के सेवातनवृत्त से ररक्त पद पर
श्री देवेन्द्र तसांह सहायक अध्यापक माननीय उच्च न्द्यायालय
इलाहाबाद के आदेश पर समायोतर्जि तकया र्जािा है। यतद इस
सम्बन्द्ि में सांथिातिकारी/कमथचारी द्वारा कोई गलि िथ्य अिवा
सूचना दी गयी है िो यह आदेश तनरथि कर तदया र्जायेगा।

(अतखलेश पाण्ड्डेय)
तर्जला तवद्यालय तनरीक्षक
हमीरपुर।
पृष्ाांकन सांख्याः-मा०/3641-43 /2005-06 िदतदनाांक।
प्रतितलतपः- तनम्नाांतकि को सूचनािथ एवां आवश्कयक कायथवाही हेिु
सादर प्रेतषि।
1- सांयुक्त तशक्षा तनदेशक, झाांसी मण्ड्डल झाांसी।
2- सहायक तवत्त एवां लेखातिकारी (मा०तश०) कायाथ०तर्ज०तव०तन०
हमीरपुर।
3- प्रबन्द्िक/प्रिानाचायथ, पी०एन०वी०इ०का० तचजली (मुथकरा)
हमीरपुर।
(अतखलेश पाण्ड्डेय)
तर्जला तवद्यालय तनरीक्षक
हमीरपुर।"

2. To put the record straight, it may
be noted that the Writ Petition No.19879 of
1989 was dismissed as having become
infructuous on 17.10.2001. The order dated
5 All. Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
361
17.10.2001 is being reproduced here as
under :-

"The office has placed this writ
petition in the group of cases relating to
service matter on account of efflux of time,
presuming suggesting that the writ petition
has become infructuous on account of
efflux of time. Be that as it may, since no
one turns up on behalf of the petitioner to
press this writ petition, it is accordingly
dismissed."

3. This order was not known to the
appellants-petitioners. However, when the
petitioners came to know of the order dated
17.10.2001, they filed an application for
recalling of the order dated 17.10.2001.
When the case was taken up on 8.3.2010, the
order dated 17.10.2001 was recalled and on
the same day it was got dismissed as not
pressed. Despite the order dated 8.3.2010
being passed by the High Court by which the
Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989 was
dismissed as not pressed, the petitionersappellants continued to function and were
paid their regular monthly salary on the
strength of the order dated 31.3.2006. After
a passage of quite some time i.e. on
1.6.2017, the Management/ Principal of the
college was put to notice by the District
Inspector of Schools to explain as to on what
basis they were paying the petitioners their
salary. They were also required to provide
the order dated 8.3.2010 by which the Writ
Petition No.19879 of 1989 was dismissed as
not pressed. This notice which was sent by
the Committee of Management/ Principal
was challenged by the petitioners jointly in
Writ Petition No.34860 of 2017 and in that
writ petition on 4.8.2017, this Court passed
an order by which the order dated 1.6.2017
was stayed. The interim order dated
4.8.2017 is being reproduced here as under
:-
 "It is contended on behalf of the
petitioners that they are working since 1987
and 1989 respectively. Previously, they
have preferred a writ petition and an
interim order was granted therein. While
they were working, the District Inspector of
Schools vide order dated 31.3.2006 has
regularized the services of the petitioners.
Both the petitioners are working.
 It appears that in the meantime
the petitioners have got the writ petition
withdrawn. Consequently, the impugned
orders have been passed and the salary of
the petitioners has been stopped.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that the petitioners are
working for more than 25 years and there is
no complaint with regard to their work and
conduct and on the technical ground the
respondents have stopped the salary of the
petitioners.

Matter needs consideration.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appears for the State functionaries.

Issue notice to respondent no. 4
returnable at an early date.

Counter affidavit be filed within
six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may
be filed within a week thereafter.

List after expiry of the said
period.

Till the next date of listing effect
and operation of the impugned orders dated
1.6.2017 and 6.6.2017 shall remain stayed.
It is further provided that the petitioners
shall be paid their salary."

4. It is thereafter the case of the
petitioners-appellants
that
when
the
Education Department asked the petitioners
to get their Writ Petition No.34860 of 2017
withdrawn
so
that
their
case
for
regularisation could be considered, they
withdrew the writ petition on 29.8.2022.
Subsequent to that on 7.9.2022, the District
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur wrote to
the Management of the Institution to
forward the resolution for the regularisation
of the services of the petitioners in view of
the fact that Writ Petition No.34860 of
2017 had been withdrawn. For reasons best
known to the Committee of Management,
the
communication/direction
dated
7.9.2022 of the District Inspector of
Schools was put to challenge by filing a
writ petition being Writ-A No.18341 of
2022. This writ petition came to be
disposed of on 14.11.2022 with a direction
to the Joint Director of Education, Jhansi to
consider the proceedings vis.-a-vis. the
notice dated 1.6.2017. Before the decision
could be taken by the Joint Director of
Education, the Committee of Management
took a decision to stop the petitionersappellants from making their signatures on
the attendance register and the petitioners
were thereafter restrained from working in
the
institution.
Consequently
the
petitioners-appellants
filed
Writ-A
No.34990 of 2023 in which on 24.2.2023,
an interim order was passed by which the
Management was directed to permit the
petitioners-appellants to work in the
institution in question. On 2.6.2023, the
Joint Director of Education, in pursuance of
the order of the High Court dated
14.11.2022 passed in Writ-A No.18314 of
2022, decided the matter and concluded
that since the appointment of the petitionerJujhar Singh in the year 1987 and that of
Devendra Singh in the year 1989 were
made in the CT grade without there being
any posts vacant, their appointments were
to be considered as irregular and they were
also not to be given any regularisation. In
the meantime, Jujhar Singh retired from the
service on 21.3.2023. Therefore, the
appellant-Jujhar
Singh
filed
Writ-A
No.11163 of 2023 separately and Devendra
Singh filed a separate writ petition being
Writ-A No.11129 of 2023. Both these writ
petitions were connected to each other and
they were heard together and when by a
common order dated 16.12.2023, the writ
petitions were dismissed, separate special
appeals were filed. The special appeal of
Devendra Singh was numbered as Special
Appeal No.167 of 2024 and that of Jujhar
Singh was numbered as Special Appeal
No.200 of 2024.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants submitted that the learned Single
Judge did not appreciate the fact that the
controversy with regard to absence of posts
had come to an end with the passing of the
order dated 31.3.2006 by the District
Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur. Learned
counsel for the appellants submitted that
this was the error which was also
committed by the Joint Director of
Education in his order dated 2.6.2023
wherein he had not considered the order
dated 31.3.2006 in its right perspective.
Learned counsel for the appellants further
stated that when independent of the orders
passed in Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989,
the order dated 31.3.2006 had been passed
then it mattered little if the Writ Petition
No.19879 of 1989 was, to begin with,
dismissed in default on 17.10.2001 and that
thereafter, after it was restored on 8.3.2010,
it was got dismissed as not pressed.
Learned counsel for the appellants referred
to the order dated 31.3.2006, which has
also been reproduced earlier in this order.
Referring to that order, he submitted that
even though the order dated 31.3.2006 had
stated that the appellants were working
because of the order dated 27.10.1989, the
actual reason for passing the order dated
31.3.2006 was that the Committee of
Management had requested the District
Inspector
of
Schools
to
adjust
the
appellants on posts which had become
5 All. Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
363
vacant on account of the retirements of two
Assistant Teachers namely Sri Ramadhar
and Sri Suraj Prasad Singh. He submits that
on the post vacated by Sri Ramadhar, the
appellant-Jujhar Singh was absorbed and
on the post vacated by Sri Suraj Prasad
Singh, the appellant-Devendra Singh was
absorbed. He submits that if in the order it
was mentioned that the absorption was
being done on account of some order of the
High Court then that statement had no
basis.

6.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants further submitted that section
33A(1-B) which was introduced in the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Boards Act, 1982 on 6.4.1981 was clearly
to the effect that if a teacher was directly
appointed after 12.6.1985 and before
13.5.1989 on an ad-hoc basis against a
substantive vacancy in the CT grade in
accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission (Removal of Difficulties)
Order, 1981 and was possessed with all the
qualifications prescribed thereunder then
with effect from the commencement of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Secondary
Education
Services Commission and Selection Boards
(Amendment) Act, 1991 that teacher shall
be deemed to have been appointed in
substantive capacity provided that teacher
had been continuously serving in the
institution from the date of ad-hoc
appointment to the date of commencement
of the Amendment Act.

7.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants
states
that
essential
requirements,
therefore,
for
getting
regularized were definitely present in the
instant case. The ad hoc appointments of
the appellants were done under the
Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981; the
petitioners
were
possessing
all
their
educational qualifications and that they had
continued to teach in the institution till the
date of their retirement and not just till
6.4.1991.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants states that even if initially there
was an irregularity which had subsequently
been remedied conscientiously then the
initial irregularity could not be made the
basis
for
taking
action
against
the
appellants after the passage of several
years. In the instant case, learned counsel
for the appellants states that the appellant
Jujhar Singh was appointed on 31.8.1987
whereas Devendra Singh was appointed on
26.2.1989. Realizing the mistake, the
Committee of Management and also the
State Authorities had absorbed these two
teachers on 23.1.2006 on substantive
vacancies.

8. Relying upon the judgments of
the Supreme Court in Mansaram vs. S.P.
Pathak & Ors. reported in (1984) 1 SCC
125 and Madras Aluminium Company
Limited vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board & Anr. reported in (2023) 8 SCC
240, learned counsel for the appellants
states that if any mistake was committed
initially then action should have been taken
with regard to it within a reasonable time,
specially when there is no limitation
prescribed. However, what would be the
'reasonable time' would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case; the
nature of default; prejudice caused and
whether any third party rights had been
created. Relying upon the two judgments,
learned counsel for the appellants states
that even if the appointments were made
irregularly in the year 1987 and 1989
respectively of the two teachers namely
Jujhar Singh and Devendra Singh, the
mistake was rectified conscientiously by
the Education Department on 31.3.2006
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and now it did not lie in the mouth of the
Education Department or the Committee of
Management of the Institution to say that
the initial appointments were made without
any
vacancies
and,
therefore,
the
regularisation could not be done.

9.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants relied upon another judgment of
the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam
Yadav & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 10 and
submitted that admittedly the appellants
were appointed on posts which were not
vacant. This did not happen because of any
fault of theirs. Also the initial appointments
were definitely approved on 11.9.1987 and
25/26.7.1989. Learned counsel, therefore,
submitted that definitely then it could not
be said that the appellants were to suffer for
no fault of theirs.

10. In the judgment of Radhey
Shyam Yadav (supra) the three petitioners
namely Lal Chandra Kharwar; Radhey
Shyam Yadav and Ravindra Nath Yadav
were appointed as Assitant Teachers in a
Junior High School in the year 1999.
However, their salaries were stopped in the
month of October 2005. There was a
dispute as to whether the petitioners were
appointed on vacant posts and as to
whether fraudulently the vacancies were
shown and the petitioners therein were
appointed. The petitioners had approached
the Allahabad High Court which (learned
Single Judge) on 10.9.2013 dismissed the
writ petition and their Special Appeal was
also dismissed on 15.9.2021. However, the
Supreme Court reversed the judgment of
the learned Single Judge and that of the
Special Appellate Court saying that the
petitioners definitely were not at fault and
that the State could not, after taking work
for such a long time, stop the salaries of the
petitioners/appellants therein. Relying upon
this judgment of Radhey Shyam Yadav
(supra) learned counsel for the appellants
states that in this case also the appellants
were appointed after due procedure and
their appointments were also approved and
thereafter realizing that they had been
appointed on non-existing posts, when the
vacancies occurred, the appellants were
also absorbed on 31.3.2006. Learned
counsel for the appellants states that this
order
dated
21.3.2006
was
never
challenged by the State or the Committee
of Management and it would be deemed
that the appellants were continuing on
substantive vacancies which was a primary
requirement of section 33-A(1-B) of the
1982 Act.

11.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants thereafter referring to a decision
of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar &
Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in
(2024) 9 SCC 327 submitted that in view
of the continuous service of the appellants
in the capacity of regular employees and in
view of the fact that the appellants were
performing duties similar to those in
permanent posts ought to have been
regularized. Learned counsel for the
appellants, relying upon this judgment of
Vinod Kumar (supra) submitted that any
irregular appointment which is not an
illegal appointment ought to be considered
for regularisation. Learned counsel for the
appellants relied upon paragraph nos.7 and
8 of this judgment and, therefore, the same
are being reproduced here as under :-

"7. The judgement in the case
State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi : (2006) 4
SCC
1
also
distinguished
between
"irregular" and "illegal" appointments
underscoring the importance of considering
certain appointments even if were not made
5 All. Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
365
strictly in accordance with the prescribed
Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to
have been made illegally if they had
followed
the
procedures
of
regular
appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present
case. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra)
case is reproduced hereunder:

"53. One aspect needs to be
clarified. There may be cases where
irregular
appointments
(not
illegal
appointments) as explained in State of
Mysore vs. S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1
SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N.
Nanjundappa vs. T. Thimmiah : (1972) 1
SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan vs. State of
Karnataka [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC
(L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above,
of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned
vacant posts might have been made and the
employees have continued to work for ten
years or more but without the intervention
of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The
question of regularisation of the services of
such employees may have to be considered
on merits in the light of the principles
settled by this Court in the cases
abovereferred to and in the light of this
judgment. In that context, the Union of
India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to
regularise as a one-time measure, the services
of such irregularly appointed, who have
worked for ten years or more in duly
sanctioned posts but not under cover of
orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned
posts that require to be filled up, in cases
where temporary employees or daily wagers
are being now employed. The process must
be set in motion within six months from this
date. We also clarify that regularisation, if
any already made, but not sub judice, need
not be reopened based on this judgment, but
there should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed
as per the constitutional scheme."
(emphasis in original)

8. In light of the reasons recorded
above, this Court finds merit in the appellants'
arguments and holds that their service
conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a
reclassification from temporary to regular
status.
The
failure
to
recognise
the
substantive nature of their roles and their
continuous
service
akin
to
permanent
employees runs counter to the principles of
equity, fairness, and the intent behind
employment regulations."

12.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants further relied upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of
India & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826 and submitted that long
and continuous service, nature of work and
the fact that there was no illegal entry into the
job ought to have been considered for the
purposes of regularisation. Since, learned
counsel for the appellants relied upon
paragraph nos. 10 and 20 of the judgment, the
same are being reproduced here as under :-

"10.
Having
given
careful
consideration to the submissions advanced
and the material on record, we find that the
appellants' long and uninterrupted service,
for periods extending well beyond ten
years, cannot be brushed aside merely by
labelling their initial appointments as parttime or contractual. The essence of their
employment must be considered in the light
of their sustained contribution, the integral
nature of their work, and the fact that no
evidence suggests their entry was through
any illegal or surreptitious route.

....................
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. It is well established that the
decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not
intend to penalize employees who have
rendered long years of service fulfilling
ongoing and necessary functions of the
State or its instrumentalities. The said
judgment sought to prevent backdoor
entries and illegal appointments that
circumvent
constitutional
requirements.
However, where appointments were not
illegal but possibly "irregular", and where
employees had served continuously against
the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a
considerable period, the need for a fair and
humane resolution becomes paramount.
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished
service
performing
tasks
inherently
required on a regular basis can, over the
time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or
temporary into a scenario demanding fair
regularization. In a recent judgement of this
Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union
of India & Ors. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230, it
was held that procedural formalities cannot
be used to deny regularization of service to
an employee whose appointment was
termed "temporary" but has performed the
same duties as performed by the regular
employee over a considerable period in the
capacity of the regular employee. The
relevant paras of this judgement have been
reproduced below:

"6.
The
application
of
the
judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High
Court does not fit squarely with the facts at
hand, given the specific circumstances
under which the appellants were employed
and have continued their service. The
reliance on procedural formalities at the
outset cannot be used to perpetually deny
substantive rights that have accrued over a
considerable period through continuous
service. Their promotion was based on a
specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a selection
process
involving
written
tests
and
interviews, which distinguishes their case
from the appointments through back door
entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi
(supra).

7. The judgement in the case of
Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished
between
"irregular"
and
"illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance
of considering certain appointments even if
were not made strictly in accordance with
the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot
be said to have been made illegally if they
had followed the procedures of regular
appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present
case..."

13. Learned counsel for the State in
opposition to the two Special Appeals has
relied upon the judgment of Abhishek
Tripathi vs. State of U.P. through Secy.
Secondary Education, Lucknow & Ors.
(Writ Petition No.655 (S/S) of 2014) dated
17.12.2015 and has submitted that any
appointment which was made dehors the
rules could not be considered to be an
appointment worth regularisation. He has
also laid much stress on the fact that when
the initial appointment was made, the same
was not so made on a regular vacancy.

14. Having heard learned counsel
for the appellants and Sri Devesh Vikram,
leaned Additional Chief Standing Counsel,
the Court is of the view that both the
Special Appeals deserve to be allowed. The
appellants after they were appointed on
31.8.1987
and
26.2.1989,
their
appointments were also approved on
11.9.1987 and 25/26.7.1989. After their
services were terminated on 17.10.1989,
they had approached the High Court by
means of Writ Petition No.19879 of 1989,
wherein an interim order was passed on
5 All. Shivam Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367
4.12.1989 and the termination order
dated 17.10.1989 was kept in abeyance. The
writ petition was thereafter dismissed as
having become infructuous on 17.10.2001.
Upon
an
application
moved
by
the
petitioners, the said order was recalled on
8.3.2010 and on the same day, it was got
dismissed as not pressed. However, during
the intervening period, the appellants had
been absorbed on two existing vacancies by
means of an order dated 31.3.2006. The
appellants having been absorbed on existing
vacancies, the irregularity, if any initially in
their appointments, would be deemed to have
been cured as per the judgments of the
Supreme Court cited by learned counsel for
the appellants i.e. Mansaram (supra) and
Madras Aluminium Company Limited
(supra). As per these judgments definitely if
any action had to be taken, it ought to have
been taken within reasonable time and that
having not been taken, the appellants could
not now be penalized. Further, the Court is of
the view that as per the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav
(supra) the appellants definitely were not at
fault. As per the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Vinod Kumar (supra) and Jaggo
(supra) we find that definitely when there
was an irregularity in the appointments of the
appellants, that irregularity had been removed
and the appointments were regularized.

15. In the ultimate analysis, we are
thus of the view that the writ petitions had to
be allowed. The orders of the Joint Director
of Education which were passed on the fact
that the initial appointment was wrongly
made, were erroneously passed.

16. For all the reasons which we
have stated above, we are of the considered
view that if there was any irregularity in the
initial appointment, it was done away with by
the State and, therefore, it cannot be said that
the appellants did not come within the
purview of the relevant provisions relating to
regularisation. The appellants after they were
absorbed on regular vacancies, it had to be
taken that they were always working on the
regular vacancies and since they were
throughout teaching till the date when they
retired, it could be taken that they were
always in continuous service.

17. Thus, for the reasons stated
above, Special Appeal No.167 of 2024 and
Special Appeal No.200 of 2024 are
allowed. The judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2023
passed in Writ-A No.11129 of 2023 and
Writ-A No.11163 of 2023 is set-aside. The
writ petitions are allowed and the order
dated 2.6.2023 passed by the Joint Director
of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi is also
quashed. The appellants be treated as
having been regularized and they be
provided with all consequential benefits.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 367
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Special Appeal No. 259 of 2024
With
Other connected cases

Shivam Pandey & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Seemant Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Archana Singh, C.S.C.