# Km. Ritu Mishra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1925
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-02
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 68411 of 2015
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-ritu-mishra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54903
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

4 All. Km. Ritu Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1925
all the materials with regard to identity of petitioners at the time of written examination
including photograph, thumb impression and signature would be taken into consideration.

30. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid directions.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1925
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 68411 of 2015

Km. Ritu Mishra & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether a meticulous adherence to a selection procedure under an inapplicable rule framework validate
an appointment or generate an enforceable legal right?
(b) Whether the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the functioning of the institution or to direct
cancellation of the appointment in question?
(c) Whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice?
(d) Whether the impugned order is a non-speaking one?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Anglo Junior High School Persia, Gorakhpur, was initially recognized under the U.P. Basic
Education Act, 1972, and came into the State's grant-in-aid list in 1980-81. In the year 2006, the school was
upgraded to a High School under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Between 2008 and 2012, five
sanctioned teachers retired. To fill these vacancies, the Committee of Management sought permission from
the District Basic Education Officer (BSA), who granted permission to advertise the posts on 25.06.2015.

The selection process was conducted in August 2015 under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. The four petitioners (who were
fully qualified (Graduates with B.Ed. and TET certificates)) were selected by a committee that included a
nominee of the BSA. They joined the institution at the end of August 2015. Following a complaint by a third
party, the Divisional Commissioner of Gorakhpur ordered an inquiry. Based on the subsequent inquiry report,
the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) directed the BSA to remove the teachers. Consequently, on
10.12.2015, the BSA issued the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioners and cancelling
their appointments.
B. Compliance with a procedure under an inapplicable statutory framework does not cure the
inherent lack of jurisdiction. Appointments made in contravention of statutory provisions are
illegal and do not confer any enforceable right. (Para 25)

Once the institution stood upgraded, all appointments were necessarily required to be made strictly in
accordance with the statutory provisions governing such upgraded institutions. The appointments of the
petitioners have been made under the provisions of the Rules of 1978, which are wholly inapplicable to the
institution in question. Upon its upgradation, the institution is governed by the provisions of the U.P.
1926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 r/w the Rules of 1982, and any appointment was required to be made
strictly in accordance therewith. (Para 41, 42, 44)

Thus, even if the entire procedure under the 1978 Rules was meticulously followed, the same would not
validate an appointment which ought to have been made in accordance with the statutory regime governing
secondary institutions. (Para 29, 30, 34, 36)

C. Jurisdiction of Commissioner - Where an appointment is ex facie contrary to statutory
provisions, the competent authority is not rendered powerless to annul the same. The impugned
action reflects an exercise of supervisory and corrective jurisdiction to rectify a patent illegality in the matter
of appointment. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any statutory embargo restraining such exercise of
power. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Commissioner could not have interfered in matters
strictly governed by the applicable statutory rules, the present case does not fall in that category, as the very
foundation of the appointments is contrary to the statutory scheme. (Para 31, 39)

D. Principles of natural justice are not to be applied in a straitjacket formula. Where the
admitted or undisputed facts lead to only one inevitable conclusion, and no prejudice is
demonstrably caused, the requirement of affording a prior opportunity of hearing may be
dispensed with. (Para 37)

In the present case, the foundational facts, namely the upgradation of the institution to a High School and the
consequent applicability of a different statutory regime, are not in dispute. Once the institution stood
upgraded, the field stood governed by the statutory provisions applicable to High Schools, and not by the
Rules of 1978. The appointments of the petitioners, having been made dehors the governing statutory
framework, are thus rendered ex facie illegal. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would have been
served by affording an opportunity of hearing. The plea of violation of natural justice, therefore, does not
persuade this Court to interfere. (Para 32, 38)

E. Mere brevity of the order does not render it invalid when the underlying illegality is apparent.
The basis of cancellation, namely non-adherence to the applicable statutory provisions, is clearly discernible
from the record. The impugned orders sufficiently indicate that the appointments were not made in
accordance with the statutory provisions applicable to institutions governed by the relevant enactments,
including the Act, 1921 and the Act, 1982 (Para 33, 40)

F. Where the substantive action itself is contrary to the governing statute, this Court would be
loath to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant relief on technical or procedural
grounds. In present case, even though certain grounds have been urged with regard to lack of jurisdiction
and the impugned order being nonspeaking in nature, the same pale into insignificance and do not merit
adjudication. (Para 43)

Applicability of recruitment rules is dependent upon the status of the institution on the date of
appointment. Thus, the entire proceedings culminating in the appointments of the petitioners stand vitiated
in the eyes of law, being dehors the applicable statutory framework. (Para 45, 46)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Sunil Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 23887 of 2009, decided on 06.04.2015 (Para 12)
2. Manju Awasthi Vs. State of U.P., 2013 (3) ADJ 64 (DB) (Para 20)
3. Shailendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., Writ A No. 6879 of 2012, Neutral Citation No. 2024 AHC-LKO41360 (Para 22)
4. Committee of Management, Standard Intermediate College, Mau, Aima and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others, Special Appeal No. 503 of 2019 (Para 25)
4 All. Km. Ritu Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1927
5. State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Para 35)
6. Manju Awasthi v. State of U.P., 2013 (3) ADJ 64 (DB) (Para 45)

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978; U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972; U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

List of Keywords
compliance, upgrade, basic, intermediate, school, teacher, recruitment, appointment, jurisdiction, principles,
natural justice.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Sudeep Dwivedi
For Respondent(s): Arun Kumar, Ashish Kumar (nagvanshi), C.S.C., S.p.k. Tripathi

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

Order on Impleadment Application

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The impleadment application has been moved for impleading Manish Kumar and
Durgesh Dhar as respondents No. 7 & 8 as they are the persons who participated in the selections,
but have been declared unsuccessful and made a complaint regarding the selection proceeding.
Therefore, as complainants, they cannot be permitted to be arrayed as party. They can also not be
permitted on the ground that they have not challenged the appointment of the petitioners on any
ground which was the option left to them.

3. Accordingly, the impleadment application is rejected.

Order on petition

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed, with a prayer to quash the orders dated 2.12.2015
and 10.12.2015, passed by respondents No. 3 & 4, respectively, with a further prayer to direct the
respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers in
the concerned institution and also make payment as and when it comes due.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the institution of respondent No.6,
namely, Anglo Junior High School Persia, Gorakhpur is an institution, established up to Junior
High School level and the said institution was recognized under U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (in
short 'Act, 1972') and appointment of teachers are being made under the U.P. Recognized Basic
Education (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978
(in short 'Rules, 1978').
1928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. The aforesaid institution came into grant-in-aid list in 1980-81 up to Junior High School.
Initially one post of Head Master and four posts of Assistant Teachers were sanctioned. However,
by order of respondent No.3 dated 31.3.2019, one extra post of Assistant Teacher was sanctioned.
Accordingly, five teachers, namely, Radhey Shyam Mishra, Shiv Shankar, Moti Yadav, Ravindra
Rai and Ram Kripal Maurya, who were getting salary under the Rules, 1978 in the Junior High
School, retired in the year 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

5. The institution was upgraded up to High School level under the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act and was granted recognition up to the aforesaid level in the year 2006. After
upgradation of the institution up to High School level, as there was no provision of creation of
posts, therefore, in order to fill up the aforesaid vacant posts, due to retirement of five teachers as
named above, who were drawing salary under the Rules, 1978, a permission was taken for
advertising the aforesaid posts of four teachers. The District Basic Education Officer granted
permission for advertisement by order dated 25.6.2015. Accordingly, the advertisement was
published in two newspapers, namely, Aaj and Swatantra Chetna on 27.6.2015.

6. The petitioners, being duly qualified with a Graduation degree, B.Ed. training
qualification, and having also qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), were selected and
appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher after undergoing due selection before the duly
constituted Selection Committee. Their appointments were accorded approval vide order dated
25.08.2015, pursuant whereto the Committee of Management issued formal appointment letters of
even date, i.e., 25.08.2015, in favour of the petitioners.

7. Thereafter, the candidates who had applied appeared before the duly constituted
Selection Committee, formed in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The Committee
comprised the Manager, the Headmaster, and a nominee of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari,
Gorakhpurnamely, the Deputy Education Officer, Shri Parasnath Kushwaha.

8. Thereafter, the petitioners duly joined the institution as Assistant Teachers on
28/31.08.2015 and have been continuously discharging their duties since then.

9. Upon a complaint lodged by one Udhay Narayan Mishra, who had earlier instituted
proceedings before the court below, the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur, initiated an
enquiry and, vide order dated 24.11.2015, directed the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) to
submit a report with respect to the said complaint.

10. Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) called for a report from
the District Basic Education Officer, who, in turn, submitted the same. Relying upon the said
report, the Assistant Director of Education, Mandal, thereafter passed an order dated 02.12.2015
directing the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, to take steps for removal/termination of
the petitioners from service. Subsequently, the District Basic Education Officer has passed the
impugned order dated 10.12.2015, whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated; in
effect, their appointments have been cancelled.
4 All. Km. Ritu Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1929
11. The aforesaid orders have been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the
Commissioner lacked inherent jurisdiction to issue directions to the Assistant Director of Education
to initiate or pass such orders, thereby impermissibly interfering in the statutory functioning of the
educational authorities governing appointments made under the provisions of the Act. It is
contended that such interference is wholly without authority of law and renders the impugned
orders ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction.

12. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment
rendered in Sunil Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 23887 of 2009, decided on
06.04.2015, wherein it has been observed that the State Government does not possess any direct
role or authority in matters pertaining to recruitment of teachers, non-teaching staff, or Class-IV
employees, as such powers are statutorily vested in the competent educational authorities
designated for the said purpose.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned orders have
been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no notice was ever
issued nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners prior to the passing of the said
orders.

14. It is further contended that the petitioners were duly appointed as Assistant Teachers
strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. However, their services have been
dispensed with without conducting any regular or detailed inquiry, as mandatorily required, before
taking such an adverse action.

15. In view thereof, it is urged that the impugned orders, having been passed in breach of
the settled legal principles and without adherence to the due process of law, are wholly arbitrary,
unsustainable, and liable to be set aside as being bad in the eyes of law.

16. The impugned orders are wholly non-speaking in nature, bereft of any reasons
whatsoever as to why the appointments of the appellants have been cancelled. Such orders, passed
without disclosing the basis or rationale, fail to meet the essential requirement of reasoned
decision-making.

17. Furthermore, the same have been issued without affording any proper notice or
opportunity of hearing to the appellants, thereby rendering the action in clear violation of the
principles of natural justice.

18. In consequence, the impugned orders, being arbitrary, unreasoned, and procedurally
infirm, are unsustainable in the eyes of law and cannot be allowed to stand.

19. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that it is an admitted position on record
that the institution in question stood upgraded to a High School in the year 2006. Consequently,
any appointment made thereafter could not have been governed by the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service
1930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Teachers) Rules, 1978, which are applicable only to institutions imparting education up to the
Junior High School level.

20. He further submits that the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res
integra and stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Manju Awasthi v. State of
U.P. reported in 2013 (3) ADJ 64 (DB), wherein it has been categorically held that the
applicability of recruitment rules is dependent upon the status of the institution on the date of
appointment. It has been authoritatively laid down that upon upgradation, the earlier statutory
framework stands eclipsed and the field becomes governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection
Board Act, 1982.

21. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that the determinative factor is the date of
appointment and not the stage at which the selection process may have been initiated. Thus, any
appointment made subsequent to upgradation, by invoking the provisions of the 1978 Rules, is
wholly without jurisdiction. Such an appointment, being in clear contravention of the statutory
mandate, is void ab initio and confers no legal right upon the appointee.

22. The learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in
Shailendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P., Writ A No. 6879 of 2012, decided on 3rd March,
2024 (Neutral Citation No. 2024 AHC-LKO-41360). In the said case, the impugned order arose
out of a procedural irregularity in the appointment of a clerk, wherein the provisions of the Rules,
1984 were invoked for making such appointment.

23. The Court, upon due consideration, dismissed the petition holding that the provisions of
the Rules, 1984 governing such appointments would not be applicable to an institution that had
already been upgraded to the level of a High School. It was categorically observed that, upon such
upgradation, the field stood occupied by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921, and the appointments were required to be made strictly in accordance therewith.

24. Consequently, it was held that any appointment made dehors the applicable statutory
framework, i.e., by erroneously invoking the Rules, 1984, stood vitiated in the eyes of law. Thus, in
light of the settled legal position, the entire proceedings culminating in such appointment were
rendered unsustainable.

25. He further submits that a batch of Special Appeals, the leading one being Special
Appeal No. 503 of 2019 (Committee of Management, Standard Intermediate College, Mau,
Aima and others vs. State of U.P. and others), has authoritatively delineated the statutory
provisions applicable to institutions which were initially Junior High Schools but were
subsequently upgraded to High Schools.

26. It is contended that the Court, in the aforesaid judgment, has clearly held that upon such
upgradation, the earlier regulatory framework ceases to operate and the appointments are thereafter
required to be made strictly in accordance with the provisions governing High Schools under the
relevant Act and Rules.
4 All. Km. Ritu Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1931
27. On the strength of the said pronouncement, it is urged that if the applicable statutory
scheme is correctly applied to the facts of the present case, the appointments of the petitioners are
ex facie dehors the prescribed rules. Consequently, it is submitted that the petitioners are not
entitled to any relief from this Court.

28. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

29. The petitioner asserts that his appointment was made against vacancies arising on
account of the retirement of four teachers, and that the entire selection process was conducted
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior
High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978.

30. He further submits that the vacancies in question were duly advertised and the selection
was conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic
Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. It
is contended that the competent authority, namely the Committee of Management, having adhered
to the prescribed procedure, the appointment in question cannot be faulted.

31. It is next submitted that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to interfere in the
functioning of the institution or to direct cancellation of the appointment in question.

32. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed without
holding any proper inquiry and without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing,
thereby being in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

33. Lastly, it is urged that the impugned order is a non-speaking one, as it fails to disclose
any cogent reasons, and is therefore liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

34. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, that since the procedure
prescribed under the 1978 Rules was duly followed, the appointment deserves protection, does not
merit acceptance. The issue is not merely whether a procedure has been followed, but whether the
correct statutory procedure has been adhered to. Once it is found that the 1978 Rules themselves
were inapplicable, any adherence to the procedure prescribed thereunder becomes wholly
inconsequential.

35. Compliance with a procedure under an inapplicable statutory framework does not cure
the inherent lack of jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has clearly held that appointments made in contravention of statutory
provisions are illegal and do not confer any enforceable right.

36. Thus, even if the entire procedure under the 1978 Rules was meticulously followed, the
same would not validate an appointment which ought to have been made in accordance with the
statutory regime governing secondary institutions.
1932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
37. As regards the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the alleged
violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court finds that it is a settled proposition of law
that such principles are not to be applied in a straitjacket formula. Where the admitted or
undisputed facts lead to only one inevitable conclusion, and no prejudice is demonstrably caused,
the requirement of affording a prior opportunity of hearing may be dispensed with.

38. In the present case, the foundational facts, namely the upgradation of the institution to a
High School and the consequent applicability of a different statutory regime, are not in dispute.
Once the institution stood upgraded, the field stood governed by the statutory provisions applicable
to High Schools, and not by the Rules of 1978. The appointments of the petitioners, having been
made dehors the governing statutory framework, are thus rendered ex facie illegal. In such
circumstances, no useful purpose would have been served by affording an opportunity of hearing.
The plea of violation of natural justice, therefore, does not persuade this Court to interfere.

39. As regards the contention pertaining to lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner, the
same is equally devoid of merit. The impugned action reflects an exercise of supervisory and
corrective jurisdiction to rectify a patent illegality in the matter of appointment. It is well settled
that where an appointment is ex facie contrary to statutory provisions, the competent authority is
not rendered powerless to annul the same. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any statutory
embargo restraining such exercise of power. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
Commissioner could not have interfered in matters strictly governed by the applicable statutory
rules, the present case does not fall in that category, as the very foundation of the appointments is
contrary to the statutory scheme.

40. So far as the submission regarding the impugned orders being non-speaking is
concerned, this Court finds that the basis of cancellation, namely non-adherence to the applicable
statutory provisions, is clearly discernible from the record. Mere brevity of the order does not
render it invalid when the underlying illegality is apparent. The impugned orders sufficiently
indicate that the appointments were not made in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable
to institutions governed by the relevant enactments, including the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921 and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982.

41. The contention sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioners, attempting to justify the
appointments under an inapplicable statutory regime, cannot be sustained. Once the institution
stood upgraded, all appointments were necessarily required to be made strictly in accordance with
the statutory provisions governing such upgraded institutions. Any deviation therefrom vitiates the
very foundation of the appointment.

42. In the present case, it is evident that the procedure adopted for appointment of the
petitioners is traceable to the rules governing Junior High Schools, which, in view of the
upgradation, had already lost their applicability. Thus, the very foundation of the appointments
stands vitiated, being dehors the statutory provisions in force.

43. In such circumstances, even though certain grounds have been urged with regard to
lack of jurisdiction and the impugned order being non-speaking in nature, the same pale into
4 All. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1933
insignificance and do not merit adjudication. It is well settled that where the substantive
action itself is contrary to the governing statute, this Court would be loath to exercise its
discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant relief on technical or procedural grounds.

44. Ultimately, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appointments of the
petitioners have been made under the provisions of the Rules of 1978, which are wholly
inapplicable to the institution in question. Upon its upgradation, the institution is governed by the
provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with the Rules of 1982, and any
appointment was required to be made strictly in accordance therewith.

45. This position stands settled by the judgment of this Court in Manju Awasthi v. State
of U.P. reported in 2013 (3) ADJ 64 (DB), wherein it has been categorically held that the
applicability of recruitment rules is dependent upon the status of the institution on the date of
appointment.

46. Thus, in light of the settled proposition of law, the entire proceedings culminating in
the appointments of the petitioners stand vitiated in the eyes of law, being dehors the applicable
statutory framework.

47. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
illegality or infirmity can be said to exist in the impugned orders warranting interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

48. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1933
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2023

Vinod Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 is maintainable against an order of the Juvenile Justice Board when the statutory remedy of appeal
under Section 101 of the Act has not been availed?
(ii) Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother v. State of
Karnataka permits bypassing the appellate remedy under Section 101 of the Act in every case?