# Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1899
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-13
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18434 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-meenakshi-sharma-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54900
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

_Characters 0–39,931 of 41,830. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39931 for what follows._

4 All. Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1899
(2026) 4 ILRA 1899
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 18434 of 2025

Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Whether the respondent authorities exceeded their legally prescribed jurisdiction by reopening and
reviewing the validity of the petitioners' 2006 selection (which had already attained finality through a
comprehensive approval order in 2018) when a Division Bench of the High Court had explicitly restricted the
scope of inquiry solely to the determination of salary arrears from 2014 to 2018.
(b) Whether the State's sudden ex-parte cancellation of the 2018 approval and the subsequent termination of
the teachers' right to work without issuing notices, furnishing adverse reports, or granting a meaningful
opportunity of hearing was legally sustainable?
(c) Whether the long, uninterrupted, and fraud-free service of the teachers since 2006 could be legally
dismantled on the technical ground that they held B.Ed. degrees rather than basic training certificates,
particularly when Supreme Court precedents explicitly protect B.Ed. teachers appointed prior to the 2008 rule
amendment?
(d) Whether the Regional Approval Committee possessed any statutory power under the law to review and
rescind its own detailed, multi-year-old approval order?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Shiksha (Junior High School) (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978: Rule 4(1) - The petitioners were appointed by the
Committee of Management of the institution on 18.11.2006 and 18.12.2006 respectively. The institution in
question was brought under the grant-in-aid list pursuant to the GO dated 02.12.2006. Teachers of the
institution were receiving their salaries from the State exchequer pursuant to the order dated 21.02.2007.
However, the petitioners were extended this benefit only after the issuance of the order dated 19.12.2014,
whereby provision was made for payment of their salaries from the State exchequer. (Para 39, 40)
After thoroughly scrutinizing initial objections regarding their qualifications (holding B.Ed. degrees) and the
selection process, the Regional Approval Committee fully validated their appointments and directed the
payment of their current salaries from the State exchequer via a detailed order dated 14.08.2018. The
petitioners were denied back-pay/arrears for the interim period between 2014 and 2018. In Special Appeal
No. 488 of 2024, on 16.05.2024, a Division Bench directed the Secretary of Basic Education to strictly consider
their limited claim regarding those salary arrears. (Para 48, 49)
Instead of deciding the restricted issue of 2014-2018 arrears, the Secretary of Basic Education issued an
order on 26.08.2025, declaring the petitioners' original 2006 appointments void because B.Ed. degrees were
allegedly not an approved qualification in 2006. Based on this directive, successive cascading orders were
issued by the respondents, culminating in an ex-parte order on 08.09.2025, by the Regional Approval
Committee cancelling its own 2018 approval.
1900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. The respondent authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in seeking to reopen the question
relating to the validity of the petitioners' selection, which had already attained finality upon due
consideration and was found to be in accordance with law. Such an exercise, being beyond the
scope of the directions issued by the appellate court, is impermissible in the eyes of law. (Para 52,
60)
Once all objections pertaining to the selection of the petitioners had been duly examined and adjudicated,
culminating in the order dated 14.08.2018 directing payment of salary, the issue that remained to be
determined was confined to the entitlement of the petitioners to salary for the period from 2014 to 2018, in
terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Court in the Special Appeal (order dated 16.05.2024). (Para 51,
57, 58)
C. The respondents have proceeded to the extent of rescinding the order dated 14.08.2018 by
passing the impugned order dated 08.09.2025, that too without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners and without conducting any inquiry whatsoever. Such action is
patently arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and clearly unsustainable in the
eyes of law. (Para 59)
D. The petitioners who had B.Ed degree and were appointed before 2008 i.e. before the date of
amendment in the Rules, which came into existence in 1978, their appointment cannot be disturbed
subsequently, especially when the appointment has been sought without playing fraud and the
teachers have put in long years of service. (Para 62)
E. Where a teacher has been appointed and has continued in service for a long period,
particularly with the knowledge of the competent authorities, such service ought not to be
unsettled on mere technical objections. Where the appointment has either been expressly approved or
the incumbent has been permitted to continue for years without objection, it is not open to the authorities to
subsequently turn around and invalidate such appointment on grounds which were very much available at the
time of appointment but were not raised. The State cannot take advantage of its own lapses after having
taken work from the employees. Long and uninterrupted continuance in service creates a legitimate equity in
favour of the employee. (Para 53, 54, 63, 64)
It is evident that the petitioners have continuously discharged their duties and have worked for a considerable
length of time, including during the period from 2014 to 2018. The petitioners are, therefore, prima
facie entitled to payment of salary for the said period. (Para 56)
Writ petitions allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Alka Singh, Writ Petition No. 14989 of 2018, decided on 29.08.2018 (Para 32)
2. Yadu Nath Singh, Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2018, decided on 13.09.2018 (Para 32)
3. District Basic Education Officer, District Mau Vs. Jagdamba Singh, Special Appeal Defective No.123 of 2009,
decided on 27.07.2010 (Para 53)
4. Kalindi Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-A No.52438 of 2010, decided on 21.12.2012 (Para 55)
5. State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 (Para 63)
6. Rattan Lal Vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 43 (Para 64)
7. Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 (Para 65)
8. Vikas Pratap Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494 (Para 66)

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Shiksha (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978.
4 All. Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1901
List of Keywords
long years of service, teacher, technical, natural justice, unsustainable, jurisdiction, salary, objections.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Adarsh Singh, Adwait Singh, Sr. Advocate
For Respondent(s): C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Radhe Shyam Gupta,
learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the
State.

2. The present writ petition has been instituted, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ of
certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 4, namely
the Regional Approval Committee under the chairmanship of the Regional Assistant Director,
(Basic), Meerut Region, Meerut. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful functioning of the
petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher in Ram Singh Vishwa Chaitanya Kanya Junior High
School, Astauli, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. Additionally, a direction has been sought against
respondent no. 2 to ensure payment of the current salary to the petitioners in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the institution, namely Ram Singh
Vishwa Chaitanya Kanya Junior High School, Astauli, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (hereinafter
referred to as the institution), is a duly recognized and aided junior high school. It is governed
by the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools
(Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, and the
Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act,
1978. Two posts of Assistant Teachers, one post of Clerk, and one post of Class-IV employee fell
vacant in the year 2006, primarily on account of resignation.

4. He further submits that the Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution
sought prior permission from the District Basic Education Officer to fill up the aforesaid vacancies
vide letter dated 09.06.2006, which was duly granted by order dated 20.09.2006. Pursuant thereto,
the vacancies were advertised in two widely circulated newspapers on 23.09.2006 and 24.09.2006.
The petitioners, being duly qualified, applied in response to the said advertisement and participated
in the selection process conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee on 05.10.2006.
Thereafter, all relevant papers pertaining to the selection proceedings were forwarded by the
Manager of the institution to the District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 08.10.2006. The
said appointments were accorded approval by order dated 18.11.2006, in pursuance whereof an
appointment letter was issued to petitioner no. 1 on the same date appointing her as Assistant
Teacher (English).

5. As Ms. Deepti Gaur, who had been selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science),
did not join the institution on account of her appointment elsewhere, the Manager of the institution
proceeded to issue an appointment letter to petitioner no. 2 on 18.12.2006. The said appointment
1902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was duly approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, vide order dated
18.12.2006. In pursuance thereof, petitioner no. 2 joined the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) on
the same date.

6. It is further contended that the State Government invited applications from eligible
institutions for their inclusion in the grant-in-aid list. In pursuance thereof, the State Government,
vide Government Order dated 02.12.2006, brought a large number of institutions within the grantin-aid fold. Consequently, the institution of the petitioners was also included in the said list, as
communicated vide letter dated 04.01.2007 issued by the Director of Education (Basic).

7. Pursuant to the inclusion of the institution in the grant-in-aid list, the salary of only one
Headmaster and two Assistant Teachers was being disbursed from the State Exchequer in terms of
the order dated 21.02.2007. However, the petitioners were not extended the said benefit, as at the
time of submission of the application for grant-in-aid, the selection proceedings in respect of the
petitioners were still underway.

8. Being aggrieved by the non-payment of salary, the petitioners submitted a representation
before the State Government seeking release of their salary from the State Exchequer. The said
representation was duly considered, and consequently, a Government Order dated 19.12.2014 came
to be issued, providing for payment of salary to the petitioners.

9. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order dated 19.12.2014, the Regional Approval
Committee, under the chairmanship of the Regional Assistant Director (Basic), Meerut Region,
Meerut, undertook scrutiny of the selection and appointment of the petitioners. Upon due
consideration and being satisfied with the validity of the said selection proceedings, the Committee
passed an order dated 14.08.2018, directing payment of salary to the petitioners with effect from
19.12.2014, i.e., the date of issuance of the aforesaid Government Order.

10. It is also submitted that although, the petitioners had been regularly discharging their
duties on the post of Assistant Teachers in the institution with effect from 18.11.2006 and
18.12.2006 respectively, after obtaining prior approval from the District Basic Education Officer,
Gautam Buddh Nagar, they were denied payment of salary till the issuance of the order dated
14.08.2018.

11. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred Writ-A No. 970 of 2019 (Shrimati
Minakshi Sharma and another vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), which came to be dismissed vide
judgment and order dated 2.04.2024. The said judgment was assailed by the petitioners by filing
Special Appeal No. 488 of 2024, which was disposed of by the Honble Division Bench vide
judgment and order dated 16.05.2024.

12. By the said order, the Honble Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 2.04.2024 and modified the order dated 14.08.2018 to the extent that the claim
of the petitioners for payment of salary and arrears shall be considered by the Secretary, Basic
Education, in accordance with law.
4 All. Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1903
13. Upon filing of the contempt petition, the Secretary, Basic Education, proceeded to pass
an order dated 26.08.2025, whereby the appointments of the petitioners were declared void, on the
ground that the same had been made in contravention of the applicable rules.

14. Pursuant thereto Respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass the order dated 30.08.2025 at the
behest of Respondent No. 1, without any independent application of mind, and further compelled
Respondent No. 3 to initiate action against the petitioners without affording them any opportunity
of hearing.

15. Consequently, Respondent No. 3, acting under the dictates of Respondent No. 2, passed
the order dated 01.09.2025 in an arbitrary and perverse manner, in gross violation of the principles
of natural justice, thereby restraining the petitioners from discharging their duties in the institution.

16. He further submits that the petitioners thereafter preferred Writ-A No. 14225 of 2025,
assailing the orders dated 26.08.2025, 30.08.2025 and 01.09.2025. In the said writ petition, this
Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order dated 09.10.2025, directing the respondents to file their
counter affidavit.

17. To the utter surprise of the petitioners, Respondent No. 4 passed an ex-parte order
dated 08.09.2025, being adversely influenced by the findings recorded in the order dated
26.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1, without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners. By means of the said order, Respondent No. 4 proceeded to cancel its
earlier order dated 14.08.2018, despite there being no provision under law conferring any power of
review upon it.

18. He further submits that the petitioners had neither any knowledge of the order dated
08.09.2025 nor was the same ever served upon them. Consequently, at the time of filing the writ
petition, the aforesaid order was not brought under challenge.

19. It is also contended that the respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass the impugned order
dated 30.08.2025 at the dictates of Respondent No. 1, without any independent application of mind.
Further, Respondent No. 3, acting under the compulsion and directions of Respondent No. 2, was
constrained to initiate action against the petitioners without affording them any opportunity of
hearing.

20. Likewise, Respondent No. 3, acting at the dictates of Respondent No. 2 and without
any independent application of mind, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 01.09.2025,
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, thereby restraining them from
discharging their duties in the institution.

21. The order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 is founded upon certain letters
and reports submitted by the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. However, at no point of time were
the said reports or materials ever furnished to the petitioners, nor were they afforded any
opportunity to submit their explanation in respect thereof. Consequently, the entire exercise stands
vitiated, having been undertaken in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.
1904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22. The impugned orders have been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that Respondent No.
1 has acted wholly without jurisdiction in travelling beyond the scope of the authority vested in
him, and in venturing into the question of the validity of the petitioners appointments, which was
neither in issue nor liable to be reopened. Rather, in terms of the directions issued by this Hon'ble
Court, Respondent No. 1 was required to confine the inquiry strictly to the limited question of
payment of salary and arrears for the period prior to 14.08.2018.

23. He further submits that while passing the impugned order, Respondent No. 1 has
ventured into examining the validity of the selection and appointments of the petitioners, an issue
which had already been duly considered and conclusively determined by the Regional Approval
Committee, chaired by the Regional Assistant Director (Basic), Meerut Region, Meerut. The said
Committee, after thoroughly examining all relevant aspects and dealing with the objections raised,
had recorded its satisfaction and accordingly approved the appointments of the petitioners.

24. Inasmuch as the order dated 14.08.2018 has neither been revoked nor recalled by any
competent authority and continues to hold the field, the petitioners remain entitled to continue in
service and discharge their duties, along with all consequential benefits, including payment of
salary from the State Exchequer. Thus, the impugned order, having failed to take into consideration
the subsistence and binding effect of the aforesaid order dated 14.08.2018, is liable to be set aside.

25. There was no occasion for Respondent No. 1 to question the factum of appointment of
the petitioners or to reopen the issue, particularly after the judgment and order passed by the
Honble Division Bench in Special Appeal No.488 of 2024 (Smt. Meenakshi Sharma And
Another vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others) dated 16.05.2024, whereby the matter stood relegated to
Respondent No. 4 therein with specific observations and directions which are as follows:

 "6. Having heard rival submissions and perusing the record, we find that while according
financial approval in the year 2018 there is no finding by the respondents to the effect that initial
appointment/ engagement of the petitioners in the institution was contrary to the relevant Rules.
The letters dated 16.4.2013 and 19.12.2014 also reflect that inter-departmental correspondence
were on to accord financial approval to the petitioners-appellants. Therefore, it is clear that the
claim was pending consideration before the Authority for according financial approval in favour of
the petitioners-appellants and moreover the Authority has also accorded salary since 2018. But
once positive communication was made on 19.12.2014 to send requisite papers of the appellants for
financial approval within 15 days but the same was not complied with, therefore, in such situation,
we find that it was not in dispute before the Authority to verify whether the petitioners were
working in the institution or not. The dispute was only to accord salary. Once this finding of fact is
returned in the above letters that they were working in the institution, the rightful claim cannot be
denied qua the salary.

 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned
judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 2.4.2024. We further modify the order
dated 14.8.2018 to the extent that the claim of the petitioners-appellants qua salary and arrears may
be considered by the Secretary (Basic Education) in accordance with law but certainly after
verifying the material/ record and after giving due opportunity to all the stake holders. The said
4 All. Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1905
exercise is to be carried out within three months from the date of production of certified copy of
this order.

 8. Accordingly, the present special appeal stands disposed of. "

26. The scope of inquiry was thus clearly circumscribed, and the same could not have been
expanded beyond the mandate of the Hon'ble Court.

27. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the alleged infirmities, as
recorded in the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1, had already been duly
examined by the competent authority at the time of granting approval to the appointments of the
petitioners vide a detailed order dated 14.08.2018. In the said order, it was categorically recorded
that the appointments of the petitioners were made in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under law, including due publication of advertisement in newspapers, one of which was a local
daily. It was further observed that there was no requirement of obtaining prior permission from the
State Government at the relevant point of time, as the institution had not yet been brought under the
grant-in-aid list.

28. In view of the aforesaid findings, all relevant aspects stood duly considered and
concluded by the competent authority. Therefore, there was no occasion for Respondent No. 1 to
reopen the matter and re-examine the very same issues, which had already been adjudicated upon
by the concerned Committee vide order dated 14.08.2018, which continues to subsist and hold the
field.

29. It is also submitted that the issue regarding the qualifications of the petitioners was also
duly examined by the Regional Approval Committee while passing the order dated 14.08.2018.
Upon such consideration, the Committee accorded approval to the appointments of the petitioners.
Once such an approval had been granted after due scrutiny, no occasion arose for reopening the
matter with regard to the selection and appointment of the petitioners, particularly when the order
dated 14.08.2018 continues to subsist and hold the field.

30. The order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 is patently illegal, inasmuch
as it fails to consider and deal with the relevant grounds and proceeds in excess of the jurisdiction
vested in it. Consequently, the order dated 08.09.2025, which is founded upon the aforesaid order
dated 26.08.2025, having been passed ex parte without issuance of notice or affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

31. Further, Respondent No. 4 lacked any statutory power to review its earlier order, and
the impugned order, having been passed without assigning any cogent reasons, is liable to be set
aside on the ground of being a non-speaking and arbitrary order.

32. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance
upon the judgments rendered in Alka Singh (Writ Petition No. 14989 of 2018, decided on
29.08.2018 and Yadu Nath Singh (Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2018, decided on 13.09.2018),
wherein it has been laid down that once appointments have been made in accordance with the rules
1906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prevailing at the relevant point of time, the same cannot be unsettled on the basis of any subsequent
amendment in the rules.

33. Applying the aforesaid settled proposition of law to the facts of the present case, it is
submitted that the petitioners, having been appointed in accordance with law prior to the institution
being brought under the grant-in-aid list, their appointments could not have been disturbed on the
grounds as mentioned in the impugned orders.

34. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents submitted that the advertisement issued for the appointment of two Assistant
Teachers, one Clerk, and one Class IV employee failed to specify the minimum qualifications,
thereby being in clear violation of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Shiksha
(Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978.

35. It is further submitted that as per Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic
Shiksha (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978,
the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in a recognized
school was a pass in Secondary Education, i.e., Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Examination or an
equivalent examination with Hindi as a subject, along with the requisite teacher training
qualification such as STC, JTC, BTC, or any Training Certificate recognized by the State
Government or the competent Council.

36. It is further submitted that in the year 2006, a B.Ed degree was not included as a
minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher. The said qualification was incorporated
only in the year 2008. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners did not possess the prescribed
minimum qualification for appointment as Assistant Teacher in a recognized school in the year
2006. Consequently, their appointment is in clear violation of Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh
Recognized Basic Shiksha (Junior High School Rules) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers), 1978.

37. In view of the foregoing submissions, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs as
claimed.

38. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

39. From the records, it is evident that the petitioners were appointed by the Committee of
Management of the institution on 18.11.2006 and 18.12.2006 respectively. The institution in
question was brought under the grant-in-aid list pursuant to the Government Order dated
02.12.2006.

40. Teachers of the institution were receiving their salaries from the State exchequer
pursuant to the order dated 21.02.2007. However, the petitioners were extended this benefit only
after the issuance of the order dated 19.12.2014, whereby provision was made for payment of their
salaries from the State exchequer.
4 All. Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1907
41. Certain objections were raised by Respondent No. 4 in the letter dated 02.02.2015 with
regard to the selection proceedings of the petitioners. It was stated that the advertisement for the
said selection was published only in one newspaper, Dainik Jagran on 23.09.2006 It was further
alleged that no prior approval had been obtained before making the appointments, and therefore,
the same were in violation of the Government Order issued under the 20.11. 2003.

42. It was also pointed out that although Mr. Majuddin Ansari, ABSA, was present during
the selection proceedings, he had not been duly nominated by the District Basic Education Officer
for that purpose. Additionally, an objection was raised regarding the educational qualifications of
the petitioners, stating that they possessed B.Ed degree, which was not the prescribed qualification
for the post.

43. In response to the aforesaid query, a report dated 15.02.2017 was submitted from the
office of the Director of Education (Basic), stating that the advertisement for the selection had been
published in Dainik Jagran as well as Hind ki Zameen. It was further clarified that at the time when
the selection process was undertaken, the institution in question was not included in the grant-in-aid
list, and therefore, no prior approval was required in terms of the Government Order dated 20th
November, 2003.

44. With regard to the presence of ABSA, Mr. Majuddin Ansari, it was reported that the
Basic Education Officer, Gautam Buddha Nagar, had informed him telephonically to remain
present at the time of the interview.

45. As regards the qualifications of the petitioners, petitioner no. 1, who possessed B.A.,
B.Ed., and petitioner no. 2, who possessed M.Sc., B.Ed., were duly eligible for appointment on the
post of Assistant Teacher in terms of the amended Fifth Amendment to the Rules, 1978.

46. Considering all the aforesaid aspects, approval for payment of salary to the petitioners
from the State exchequer was accordingly granted vide order dated 19.12.2014.

47. Accordingly, upon due consideration and after addressing all the objections, the
Regional Approval Committee, under the chairmanship of the Regional Assistant Director (Basic),
Meerut Region, Meerut, passed an order dated 14.08.2018, directing that the petitioners be paid
their salaries from the State exchequer with effect from 19.12.2014, i.e., the date of issuance of the
aforesaid Government Order providing for such payment.

48. However, the petitioners were denied payment of salary for the period from 2014 to
2018. Aggrieved thereby, they filed a writ petition, which came to be dismissed.

49. The special appeal preferred against the said order of dismissal was, however,
entertained and ultimately disposed of by order dated 16.05.2024, whereby the Secretary, Basic
Education, was directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners/appellants regarding
payment of salary and arrears, in accordance with law, after verifying the relevant records and
affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
1908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
50. While disposing of the appeal, the appellate court also recorded a finding that the
petitioners had been working in the institution, as was evident from the records, and the said fact
was not in dispute.

51. Upon due consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that once all objections
pertaining to the selection of the petitioners had been duly examined and adjudicated, culminating
in the order dated 14.08.2018 directing payment of salary, the issue that remained to be determined
was confined to the entitlement of the petitioners to salary for the period from 2014 to 2018, in
terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Court in the Special Appeal.

52. It is, therefore, manifest that the respondent authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in
seeking to reopen the question relating to the validity of the petitioners' selection, which had
already attained finality upon due consideration and was found to be in accordance with law. Such
an exercise, being beyond the scope of the directions issued by the appellate court, is impermissible
in the eyes of law.

53. The controversy in the present case stands squarely covered by the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court passed in Special Appeal Defective No.123 of 2009 (District Basic
Education Officer, District Mau v. Jagdamba Singh), decided on 27.07.2010 wherein it has
been authoritatively held that where a teacher has been appointed and has continued in service for a
long period, particularly with the knowledge of the competent authorities, such service ought not to
be unsettled on mere technical objections.

54. The Court further emphasized that long and uninterrupted continuance in service
creates a legitimate equity in favour of the employee. It was also observed that where the
appointment has either been expressly approved or the incumbent has been permitted to continue
for years without objection, it is not open to the authorities to subsequently turn around and
invalidate such appointment on grounds which were very much available at the time of
appointment but were not raised.

55. The Court while deciding the issued involved in Writ-A No.52438 of 2010 (Kalindi
Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Others as decided on 21.12.2012), wherein the Selection Committee
had recommended the name of the petitioner therein in the year 1996 and the District Basic
Education Officer has granted approval to the aforesaid recommendation for appointment of the
petitioners therein as Assistant Teachers and the petitioners continued to teach for 14 years, when
an objection was the District Basic Education Officer regarding the fact that the petitioners did not
possess the requisite teachers training course certificate at the time of his appointment, had
observed that the petitioners cannot be said to be at any fault because it is not the case that the
documents on the basis of which appointment was sought were forged. Thus, at this stage i.e. after
14 years, even if it is assumed that the said certificate, possessed by the petitioners does not satisfy
the requirement of the relevant rules, then too, the absence of requisite training certificate would
not be that grave in the light of the other factors narrated in that case and the fact that the
petitioners had gained sufficient experience, the decision for cancelling the appointment or
dismissing the petitioners therein from service was arbitrary.
4 All. Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1909
56. From the record, as also noticed by the Division Bench while deciding the Special
Appeal, it is evident that the petitioners have continuously discharged their duties and have worked
for a considerable length of time, including during the period from 2014 to 2018. Their working in
the institution has, at no point, been disputed by the respondents. The petitioners are, therefore,
prima facie entitled to payment of salary for the said period.

57. The appellate court, while disposing of the Special Appeal vide order dated 16.05.2024,
had specifically directed the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioners with
regard to payment of salary and arrears, after due verification of the relevant records and upon
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

58. In such circumstances, once the aforesaid direction had been issued, the scope of
consideration before the respondents stood confined to the determination of the petitioners
entitlement to salary for the relevant period. There was, therefore, no occasion or jurisdiction for
the respondent authorities to reopen the issue relating to the validity of the petitioners selection,
particularly when all objections in that regard had already been duly examined and addressed while
passing the order dated 14.08.2018.

59. The respondents have proceeded to the extent of rescinding the order dated 14.08.2018
by passing the impugned order dated 08.09.2025, that too without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners and without conducting any inquiry whatsoever. Such action is patently
arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and clearly unsustainable in the eyes of law.

60. Moreover, the impugned action runs directly contrary to, and in the teeth of, the
directions issued by this Honble Court in the Special Appeal, whereby the scope of consideration
was specifically confined to the issue of payment of salary and arrears. The respondent authorities
have thus acted beyond their jurisdiction in reopening and unsettling a matter which had already
attained finality.

61. In Special Appeal No.1461 of 2005 (Committee of Management vs. State of U.P. and
Others) and other connected special appeals, by order dated 09.01.2009, the appointment of the
teachers who had B.Ed qualification and appointment made before the amendment of 1978 Rules
in the year 2008, was set-aside on the ground that B.Ed is not one of the essential qualifications
prescribed under the Rules. The teachers approached the Honble Apex Court by means of filing
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s)14907/2009 along with Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2454924580 of 2011, 27396 of 2016, 26331 of 2009 and C.A. No.3904 of 2013, in which the Apex Court
vide order dated 14.07.2017 has passed the following order:

 "Heard learned counsel for the parties.

 Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been in service for a long period, we
are of the view that their appointments ought not be disturbed only on the ground of alleged lack of
qualification which is contested by the petitioners.
1910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Accordingly, the special leave petitions are disposed of by directing that the services of
the petitioners be not disturbed on the above grounds.

 Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

62. Once a view has been taken in several judgments as passed by this Court and the
Hon'ble Apex Court that the petitioners who had B.Ed degree and were appointed before 2008 i.e.
before the date of amendment in the Rules, which came into existence in 1978, their appointment
cannot be disturbed subsequently, especially when the appointment has been sought without
playing fraud and the teachers have put in long years of service.

63. In the case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where employees have worked for a long period and their
appointments were not tainted by fraud or illegality, their services deserve protection. The Court
emphasized that long and continuous service cannot be ignored on technical grounds.

64. The Apex Court in the case of Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1985) 4
SCC 43 has held that where teachers had worked for a considerable time, denial of salary or
termination on technical grounds would be arbitrary. The Court observed that the State cannot take
advantage of its own lapses after having taken work from the employees.

65. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238, has reiterated that employees who have continued for
long periods should not be deprived of benefits, particularly when the employer has taken work
from them and there is no fraud attributable to the employee.

66. The Apex Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494, has held that in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is
made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or
irregularity, the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of
various factors including bona fide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of
the candidate after such appointment.

67. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the orders impugned are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by Respondent No.4, order dated
26.08.2025 passed by Respondent No.1, order dated 30.08.2025, passed by respondent No.2 and
order dated 01.09.2025, passed by Respondent No.3 are quashed.

68. With the aforesaid observations, these petitions are allowed.

69. Accordingly, all the benefits may be provided to the petitioners, for which they is
entitled for.

70. The Court records its appreciation for the meticulous efforts and valuable assistance
rendered by Ms. Anushka Gupta and Ms. Vaishanavi Kesarwani, Research Associates. The
4 All. Ankit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1911
precision, clarity and exactitude reflected in the legal research and analysis submitted by
them, demonstrates commendable attention to detail. The Court acknowledges their contribution in
aiding the adjudication of the matter.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1911
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No. 29002 of 2019

Ankit Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents