# Smt. Reena v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 980
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-06
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18923 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-reena-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54089
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charges. Ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner in terms of Rule-9 on submission of the
enquiry report. The reply was submitted, which has been duly considered by the disciplinary
authority and thereupon the impugned order of withholding two increments of the petitioner and a
censure entry has been made against the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court finds that the entire
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is fully in consonance with the Rules, 1999.

15. Therefore, this Court do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order
dated 05.10.2023 passed against the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the Writ- A No. 12078 of 2024
is hereby dismissed.

16. Since the punishment order dated 05.08.2023 has already been upheld by this Court, still
the petitioner is definitely entitled for other benefits barring the two increments on his retirement,
which has taken place on 28th February 2025.

17. In view thereof, the Writ- A No. 15424 of 2025 is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent no.1 to grant all the retiral dues as well as the fixation of regular pension etc. including
the leave encashment and gratuity etc., to which the petitioner is entitled to subject to the order
dated 05.10.2023 passed by the disciplinary authority.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 980
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2026

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 18923 of 2025

Smt. Reena ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Permissibility of initiating disciplinary proceeding for a misconduct not committed during service.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding - Punishment - Dismissal - Assistant Teacher - Charge
of misconduct - Petitioner performed marriage in the year 2009 with a person already married -
Appointment was made in 2015 after 6 years to such marriage - Provision of Conduct Rules was
invoked - Permissibility. (E-1)
Held : Punitive provisions, such as those contained in the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules,
1956 or the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999, apply only to persons who are validly appointed and are
government servants in the eyes of law. These provisions cannot be invoked to punish a person for an act
which renders her ineligible for appointment itself - A violation of Rule 12 may render the appointment
voidable, subject to adjudication, but cannot attract disciplinary punishment unless the appointment was
secured by fraud, suppression of material facts, or deliberate misrepresentation. In the absence of such
elements, initiation of disciplinary proceedings would be legally unsustainable - The case does not involve
1 All. Smt. Reena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
981
misconduct attracting punishment under the Conduct Rules or the Discipline and Appeal Rules, but concerns a
statutory disqualification existing at the time of appointment itself. [Para 30, 36 and 39]

Case Law Cited
Writ A No. 5111 of 2022, Balram Panwar vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 18.09.2024; Khursheed
Ahmad Khan vs. State of U.P. and others, (2015) 8 SCC 439. - referred to.

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers Service) Rules, 1981 - Rule 12; Uttar Pradesh Government Servants
Conduct Rules, 1956 - Ss. 3 and 29; U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999; Uttar
Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 - Ss. 6 and 19.

List of Keywords
Dismissal, Major punishment, Void ab initio appointment, Misconduct, Disciplinary jurisdiction, Relationship of
employer and employee, Disciplinary proceedings, Performing marriage during subsistence of first marriage,
Eligibility for appointment, Punitive provision, Directive in nature, Non-penal, Misrepresentation, Suppression
of material facts, Statutory qualification, Opportunity of hearing.

Case Arising From
Impugned dismissal order dated 12.11.2025 passed by District Basic Education Officer.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant : Grijesh Tiwari.
Advs. for the Respondents : Shashi Prakash Singh, SC and Dr. Shiv Bahadur Singh.

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

1. Heard Mr. Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Prakash Singh,
learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dr. Shiv
Bahadur Singh, learned counsel has assisted the Court on the legal issue.

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

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
dismissal order dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure no.1 to this writ petition) passed by the District Basic
Education Officer, Mau, i.e. by the respondent no.3.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the
respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned
order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau, i.e. by the respondent
no.3.

3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and not to interfere in his peaceful functioning as
Assistant Teacher and to pay her salary regularly month to month as and when it falls due.

4. Issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court made deem
fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
982 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

3. Placing brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was selected and appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school on 07.11.2015.
Subsequently, on the basis of a complaint made by one Rampravesh Rajbhar, alleging that the
petitioner had performed marriage with one Arvind Yadav, who already had a living wife, the
impugned order has been passed relying upon the provisions of Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education (Teachers Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1981"), which is
arbitrary, illegal, and unreasonable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order has been
challenged on the ground that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without holding
any detailed disciplinary inquiry, as required under law. It is further submitted that the petitioner
was not aware of the fact that the first wife of Arvind Yadav was alive at the time when the
petitioner performed marriage with him. Even assuming the applicability of the Rules, 1981, the
alleged charge does not prescribe termination as a major punishment under the said Rules. In
support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Panwar vs. State of
U.P. through Secretary, Nyay Vibhag, U.P. & Another1, as well as the interim order dated
05.11.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 11264 of 20242. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid facts. However, he
submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules, 1981, though the termination order
could not have been passed, but the appointment of the petitioner could have been cancelled on the
ground that she had married a person whose first wife was alive at the relevant time.

6. Learned counsel Dr. S. B. Singh, while assisting the Court, has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khursheed Ahmad Khan vs. State of U.P. and Others3,
wherein the applicability of Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, has
been considered. It has been contended that, in view of the above Rule 12 of the Rules of 1981 is
applicable in facts of present case and the appointment of the petitioner is void ab initio, as the
same was obtained by concealment of a material fact, namely, that the petitioner had married a
person whose first marriage was still subsisting at the relevant time. He has placed emphasis upon
Para no.11 of the aforesaid judgment, which is as follows:-

"11. As already mentioned above, there is adequate material on record in support of the
charge against the appellant that he performed second marriage during the currency of the first
marriage. Admittedly, there is no intimation in any form on record that the appellant had divorced
his first wife. In service record she continued to be mentioned as the wife of the appellant.
Moreover, she has given a statement in inquiry proceedings that she continued to be wife of the
appellant. The appellant also admitted in inquiry conducted on directions of the Human Rights
Commission that his first marriage had continued. In these circumstances, the finding of violation
of Conduct Rules cannot be held to be perverse or unreasonable so as to call for interference by
this Court. In these circumstances, the High Court was justified in holding that the penalty of
1 All. Smt. Reena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
983
removal cannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge on established judicial
parameters"

7. Before discussing the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to place on record certain
provisions which are necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter.

8. Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956 reads as follows:-

"3. General.

(1) Every Government servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion
to duty.

(2) Every Government servant shall at all times conduct himself in accordance with the
specific or implied orders of Government regulating behaviour and conduct which may be in
force."

9. Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956 reads as follows:-

"29. Bigamous marriages.

(1) No Government servant who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without
first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is
permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him.

(2) No female Government servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without
first obtaining the permission of the Government.

(3) The minimum punishment to be imposed for contravention of sub-rule (1) or sub-rule
(2) shall be the withholding of increments for three years."

10. Section 6 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 reads as follows:-

"6. Officers and other employees of the Board. -

(1) For the purpose of enabling it efficiently to discharge its functions under this Act the
Board may appoint such number of officers, teachers and other employees as it may, with the
previous approval of the State Government, think fit.

(2) [* * *] [Omitted by U.P Act No. 12 of 1978 (w.e.f. 27.4.1978).]

(3) [* * *] [Omitted by U.P Act No. 21 of 1975 (w.e.f. 3.5.1975).]"

11. Section 19 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 reads as follows:-
984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"19. Power to make Rules. -

[(1) The State Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes
of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely -

(a) the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the posts of
officers, teachers and other employees under Section 6;

(b) the tenure of service, remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of
officers, teachers and other employees transferred to the Board under Section 9;

(c) the recruitment, and the conditions of service of the persons appointed, to the
posts of teachers and other employees of basic schools recognised by the Board;

(d) any other matter for which insufficient provision exists in the Act and provision in the
rules is considered by the State Government to be necessary;

(e) any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed.]"

12. Rule 12 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 reads as follows:-

"12. Marital status.

- A male candidate who has more than one wife living or a female candidate who has
married a person already having a wife living, shall not be eligible for appointment to the service :

Provided that the Board may, if satisfied that there exists special ground for doing so,
exempt any person from the operation of this rule."

13. Upon a plain and literal interpretation of Rule 3 read with the relevant part of Rule 29 of
the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, it is manifest that the misconduct
contemplated thereunder, which is made punishable by the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999, is relatable only to a government servant namely, a person who is
already borne on the cadre and in government service. The said rules do not envisage their
application to a person prior to his or her entry into service.

14. The disciplinary jurisdiction under the 1999 Rules can be invoked only when the
relationship of employer and employee subsists. In the absence of such a relationship, initiation of
disciplinary proceedings or imposition of punishment would be wholly without authority of law
and unsustainable.

15. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that conduct rules operate prospectively
and regulate the behaviour of a government servant during the tenure of service, and not prior
1 All. Smt. Reena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
985
thereto. Any action taken dehors the existence of a master servant relationship would be arbitrary
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

16. A conjoint reading of Section 6 with Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act,
1972 clearly indicates that the Board has been constituted for the purpose of appointment of
teachers, as well as for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed as
teachers and other employees of basic schools recognized by the Board. In exercise of the powers
conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1972, the State Government has
accordingly framed the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981.

17. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1981, deals with the marital status of a candidate and provides that
a person shall be ineligible for appointment to the service on the grounds specified therein.
However, the Rule further empowers the Board to grant exemption from the operation of this
provision, if it is satisfied that special grounds exist in favour of such person.

18. In the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner contracted marriage with
Arvind Yadav in the year 2009, during the subsistence of his first marriage with another woman.
However, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher only in the year 2015.

19. Rule 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 applies to the
conduct of a government servant during the period of service. Acts or omissions that took place
prior to entering into government service do not fall within the ambit of the said rule. Since the
alleged marital irregularity pertains to the year 2009, i.e., much prior to the petitioner s appointment
in 2015, the provisions of Rule 29 of the Conduct Rules, 1956 are clearly inapplicable to the
petitioner s case.

20. Accordingly, any action sought to be taken against the petitioner by invoking Rule 29 of
the Conduct Rules, 1956, on the basis of an event that occurred before she entered government
service, is legally unsustainable and cannot be upheld.

21. To be more specific, Rule 3 and Rule 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants
Conduct Rules, 1956 makes it manifest that these provisions govern the conduct of a government
servant. Rule 3 opens with the expression every government servant while Rule 29 expressly
begins with the words no government servant . The deliberate and consistent use of this
phraseology leaves no manner of doubt that the Rules are intended to regulate the conduct of
persons who are already in government service.

22. Consequently, the applicability of the Conduct Rules, 1956 is confined to those who have
entered government service, and the said Rules cannot be invoked against a person at a stage prior
to appointment. Any interpretation extending their operation to candidates or persons not yet in
service would be contrary to the plain language of the Rules and the settled principles of statutory
construction.

23. Be that as it may, the issue which falls for consideration in the facts of the present case is
not the applicability of the Conduct Rules, 1956, but the eligibility of the candidate with respect to
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
marital status, as prescribed under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1981. It is this statutory provision which
governs the eligibility for appointment and, therefore, the same alone is required to be examined in
the context of the present facts.

24. Accordingly, the determination of the controversy must rest upon an assessment of the
petitioner s eligibility under the Rules of 1981, rather than upon any alleged infraction of the
Conduct Rules, 1956, which operate only after a person has entered government service.

25. The present case is required to be examined in the context of the applicability of Rule 12
of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981. The determinative issue is
whether the petitioner was eligible for appointment as an Assistant Teacher, having contracted
marriage in the year 2009 with a person whose first marriage was subsisting at the relevant time.
Consequently, the further question that arises for consideration is the nature of consequences or
punishment, if any, that may ensue, and the statutory provision under which such action is
permissible.

26. Thus, the present case must be examined primarily with reference to Rule 12 of the Uttar
Pradesh Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981, which governs the eligibility of a candidate
at the stage of initial appointment. Rule 12 creates a statutory bar on appointment where a
candidate has contracted a marriage with a person whose spouse is living, unless an exemption is
granted by the competent authority on special grounds.

27. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner solemnized her
marriage in the year 2009 with a person whose first marriage was subsisting at the relevant time.
Therefore, the crucial question is not one of misconduct during service, but whether the petitioner
was eligible for appointment at all when she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher.

28. A clear distinction must be drawn between: (i) ineligibility at the threshold of
appointment; (ii) misconduct committed by a government servant after entering service.

29. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1981 does not prescribe any punishment. It merely stipulates a
condition of eligibility. If such condition is violated, the appointment itself becomes void ab initio,
having been made in contravention of statutory rules.

30. On the other hand, punitive provisions, such as those contained in the Uttar Pradesh
Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 or the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999, apply only to
persons who are validly appointed and are government servants in the eyes of law. These
provisions cannot be invoked to punish a person for an act which renders her ineligible for
appointment itself.

31. Where an appointment is found to be in violation of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1981: the
consequence is cancellation of appointment, not punishment and in such a case, no departmental
inquiry or disciplinary proceedings are required, as the issue is not misconduct but lack of statutory
eligibility.
1 All. Smt. Reena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
987

32. The question of imposing punishment under the Conduct Rules, 1956 does not arise, as
those rules presuppose a lawful entry into service.

33. To make it more clear, Rule 12 of the Rules of 1981 prescribes a condition relating to the
marital status of a candidate at the stage of eligibility for appointment. The said provision neither
defines any act as misconduct nor prescribes any penalty for its breach. It is well settled that
eligibility conditions governing entry into service stand on a different footing from rules regulating
conduct after appointment.

34. Punishment can be imposed only when an act falls within the ambit of misconduct as
defined under the applicable Conduct Rules, namely, the U.P. Government Servants Conduct
Rules, 1956, read with the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. A rule
governing eligibility cannot, by itself, be elevated to the status of a penal provision unless the
statute expressly so provides.

35. Further, Rule 12 itself empowers the competent authority to grant exemption on special
grounds, which clearly indicates that the provision is directory in nature and non-penal. A provision
containing a power of relaxation cannot ordinarily be construed as creating an offence or
misconduct.

36. At best, a violation of Rule 12 may render the appointment voidable, subject to
adjudication, but cannot attract disciplinary punishment unless the appointment was secured by
fraud, suppression of material facts, or deliberate misrepresentation. In the absence of such
elements, initiation of disciplinary proceedings would be legally unsustainable.

37. The Supreme Court has consistently held that breach of eligibility conditions relates to the
validity of appointment and not to misconduct, unless accompanied by fraud or deception.

38. It is settled law that no punishment can be imposed unless the act complained of is defined
as misconduct under the service rules. Where an appointment is obtained by misrepresentation or
suppression of material facts, disciplinary action is permissible; otherwise not, presence of a power
to relax conditions indicates that the rule is not intended to be punitive.

39. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner,
having contracted marriage in the year 2009 with a person whose first marriage was subsisting, was
rendered ineligible for appointment under Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers
Service Rules, 1981. The defect goes to the very root of the appointment, rendering it void ab
initio. The case does not involve misconduct attracting punishment under the Conduct Rules or the
Discipline and Appeal Rules, but concerns a statutory disqualification existing at the time of
appointment itself.

40. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by respondent no.3
is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer,
Mau, to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after issuing a showcause notice to the petitioner and affording her an opportunity of hearing, keeping in mind the
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relevant statutory provisions as well as the observations of the Court, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order,
if there is no legal impediment.

41. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 988
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 19185 of 2025
alongwith other cases

Samita ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of non-fulfilling the pre-condition as provided u/s 18 of the Act of 1982 to the entitlement of the
adhoc Principal to get salary as regular Principal.
(2) Exception to the Rule of Precedent regarding binding effect of judgment rendered by the Division bench
over the bench of Single Judge.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Salary - Adhoc Principal/Headmaster - Promotion of senior most qualifying
teacher to the adhoc vacancy of Principal was made - Salary as the regular Principal was
claimed - Permissibility - Precondition provided u/s 18 of the Act of 1982 was not fulfilled -
Effect - Exception to the Rule of Precedent regarding binding effect of judgment of Division
Bench over the Bench of Single Judge explained. (E-1)
Held : Judgments of year '1980', '1982' and '1985' were decided mainly on basis of a Government Order
dated 18.01.1974, which provides that a teacher officiating the post of Principal is entitled to receive salary of
Principal grade - Court takes note that all these judgments are passed by Division Benches of this Court,
therefore, present Bench being a Single Bench has to follow except it some provisions of law were not
specifically considered - In none of above referred cases, Section 18 of Act of 1982 as inserted in the year
2000 was interpreted or considered since enacted subsequently - Preconditions mentioned in Section 18 of
the Act of 1982 has to be complied with being mandatory and only thereafter, such ad-hoc promotee on the
post of Principal or Head Master would be entitled for salary of said post. [Para 11, 12, 16 and 23]
(B) Precedent - Rules regarding binding effect of judgment of Division Bench over the Bench of
Single Judge - Exception - Applicability. (E-1)
Held : Court takes note that all these judgments are passed by Division Benches of this Court, therefore,
present Bench being a Single Bench has to follow except it some provisions of law were not specifically
considered - The Full Bench in Dr. Jai Prakash Narayan Singh has only made a reference of judgments of
1980, 1982 and 1985 and Radha Raizada (supra) but has not taken note of effect of Section 18 of Act of 1982
as it was not an issue for consideration before the Full Bench - The above questions were not answered in
Narbdeshwar Misra and being prior to said amendment, therefore, this Court has a jurisdiction to interpret the
issue in terms of Section 18(2) of Act of 1982. [Para 12, 17 and 21]