The Allahabad High Court has clarified that teachers and staff working in educational institutions whose recognition has been cancelled do not have any statutory right to seek adjustment or absorption in other recognised schools. The Court held that once the recognition of an institution is withdrawn, its teachers and employees cannot claim adjustment or absorption in other aided or recognised institutions as a matter of right.
In this context, the Court emphatically observed that,
“It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that absorption or adjustment is not an inherent or vested right of an employee. Such right can accrue only when it is expressly provided by statute, statutory rules, or a specific government policy. In the absence of any such enabling provision, teachers of a derecognised institution cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the State authorities or the management of other recognised institutions to absorb or adjust them.”
The aforesaid order was passed by the Single Judge Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while dismissing a writ petition filed by Chandra Prakash Singh, an Assistant Teacher working in an aided Junior High School in Gorakhpur, along with four other teachers and staff members.
In the present petition, the petitioners had challenged the order by which the Director of Education (Basic), Gorakhpur/Basti Division rejected their request for adjustment and payment of salary.
According to the facts of the case, the recognition of the concerned school was cancelled on the ground that it had been obtained on the basis of illegal construction on Panchayat land and forged records. Thereafter, the students were adjusted in other schools, while the salary of teachers and staff was stopped from August 2018.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were duly appointed staff members of the institution and were receiving their salary regularly from government grants. Since the cancellation of recognition was not due to any fault on their part, they could not be penalised and were entitled to adjustment in other institutions on their respective posts.
It was further argued that as the recognition was cancelled for reasons beyond their control, the order directing adjustment of students should equally have provided for adjustment of the institution’s staff.
Refuting these submissions, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent/Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur stated that since the recognition of the institution was withdrawn on the basis of forged and fabricated records, the request of the teaching and non-teaching staff could not be considered.
It was pointed out that under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, there is no provision for transfer or adjustment upon withdrawal of recognition.
It was further contended that reliance placed by the petitioners on the Government Order dated 15.01.2019 was misconceived, as the said Government Order applies only to cases where, due to a fall in student strength, surplus teaching and non-teaching staff of duly recognised and aided institutions are permitted to draw salary till superannuation.
After hearing both the sides, the Court held that as the institution’s recognition had been withdrawn on account of serious irregularities revealed in the inquiry, the petitioners were not entitled to be adjusted or transferred to any other institution.
Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others, the Court held that,
“………appointments made in an educational institution are dependent upon its recognition; once recognition is withdrawn, such appointments cannot subsist.”
The Court further noted that,
“Recognition of an educational institution is the statutory foundation for its lawful existence. Appointments of teachers made therein derive their validity solely from such recognition. Once recognition is cancelled by the competent authority, the institution ceases to function as a recognised institution in the eyes of law, and the appointments of teachers, being co-terminus with recognition, automatically lose their legal sanctity.”
The Court rejected the plea of the petitioners based on parity, namely that some similarly situated teachers had been adjusted elsewhere. It reiterated that Article 14 of the Constitution embodies the principle of positive equality and not negative equality.
The Court observed that,
“An illegality or irregular benefit extended to any individual does not create a precedent nor confer a legal right upon others to claim similar treatment. Where the statute does not provide for absorption of teachers of a derecognised institution, no right can be founded merely on the basis that some persons may have been granted such benefit erroneously. Courts cannot perpetuate an illegality under the guise of equality.”
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, the Court explained the scope of Article 14 and reiterated that equality under the Constitution cannot be enforced in a negative manner.
In the said order, reference was also made to Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, wherein it was held that citizens often harbour misconceptions regarding the scope of Article 14, which guarantees equality before law and not equality in illegality.
The Court further clarified that service rights cannot be created on the basis of sympathy, hardship, or length of service, and clearly observing “Courts cannot create service rights by judicial fiat where the statute is silent.”
Finally, the Court directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, to issue appropriate circulars forthwith clarifying that teachers of institutions whose recognition has been withdrawn do not acquire any vested, accrued, or enforceable right of absorption or adjustment unless expressly sanctioned under statutory provisions. The Court also directed that past instances of such adjustments be reviewed and corrective action be taken in accordance with law, if found to be contrary to the rules.
Accordingly, for the compliance of the order, the Court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to forward a copy of the order to the Principal Secretary (Law), Department of Basic Education, and the Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
Case: Chandra Prakash Singh and 4 others vs State of U.P. and 4 others
Date of Order: 27.01.2026
See Order: Chandra Prakash Singh and 4 others vs State of U.P. and 4 others
