The Allahabad High Court, while hearing a plea challenging the validity of appointments of Assistant Teachers in a Gorakhpur-based aided institution, ruled that,
“Appointments made in contravention of statutory provisions are illegal and do not confer any enforceable right.”
The Court further emphasized that merely following a complete selection process under an incorrect statutory framework does not render such appointments valid. The said order was passed by the Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while dismissing the petition filed by Km. Ritu Mishra and three others.
According to the facts of the case, the Anglo Junior High School, Persia, Gorakhpur, was included in the grant-in-aid list in 1980–81 up to the Junior High School level, with one post of Headmaster and four posts of Assistant Teachers.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/child-welfare-over-personal-law-custody-allahabad-high-court/
Between 2008 and 2012, these teachers retired, resulting in vacancies. In 2015, an advertisement was issued to fill these posts. The petitioners, possessing Graduation and B.Ed. qualifications and having qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), were selected through a duly constituted Selection Committee and appointed accordingly.
However, the institution had already been upgraded to the High School level in 2006. Despite of this, the appointments were made under the 1978 Rules applicable to Junior High Schools, whereas, post upgradation, the institution was governed by laws relating to secondary education.
On the basis of a complaint, an inquiry was undertaken resulting in cancellation of the appointments, which was then brought under challenge before the High Court.
The key issue before the Court was whether appointments made under Junior High School rules in an institution already upgraded to High School could be treated as valid.
The Court held that the validity of an appointment depends on the status of the institution at the time of appointment. Once the institution is upgraded, the earlier rules automatically become inapplicable.
The court observed that,
“Mere brevity of the order does not render it invalid when the underlying illegality is apparent.”
The Court noted that the petitioners’ appointments were made under the 1978 Rules, despite the institution having been upgraded in 2006. It clarified that in such cases, the applicable legal framework is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. In view of this, appointments made under the outdated statutory framework cannot be legally upheld.
The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, reaffirmed that appointments in breach of statutory provisions do not give rise to enforceable rights. It also turned down the argument of violation of natural justice, observing that where facts are admitted and the conclusion is inevitable, the absence of a hearing does not render the order invalid. The plea challenging the Commissioner’s jurisdiction was likewise dismissed, the Court holding the action to be a legitimate exercise of supervisory and corrective powers.
The court submitted that,
“The appointments of the petitioners, having been made dehors the governing statutory framework, are thus rendered ex facie illegal.”
Finally, the Court concluded that,
“The entire proceedings culminating in the appointments of the petitioners stand vitiated in the eyes of law, being dehors the applicable statutory framework.”
Accordingly, considering the fundamentally flawed legal process underlying the appointments, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition.
Case: Km. Ritu Mishra and 3 others vs State of U.P. and 5 others
Case No: Writ – A No. – 68411 of 2015
Date of Order: 02.04.2026
Status: Dismissed
