Appointments Under Inapplicable Statute Vitiated; Natural Justice Violation No Ground To Interfere With Termination: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that appointments made under a statute which is inapplicable on the institution— are vitiated and orders of termination of such employees cannot be set aside merely on grounds of order being non-speaking.

Observing that the appointments were not made under the statutory provisions applicable to the institution, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,

“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 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.”

Petitioners pleaded that their institution was recognized under U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and their appointments were governed by U.P. Recognized Basic Education (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. In 2006, the institution was upgraded to High School level under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act but there was no provision for creation of posts.

The District Basic Education Officer granted permission for advertisement of 4 posts of teachers which became vacant upon retirement of earlier appointees. After going through the selection process, petitioners were selected and their appointment letters were issued by the Committee of Management.

Upon a complaint lodged by one Udhay Narayan Mishra, inquiry was conducted, pursuant to which termination order of the petitioners was passed.

The termination order was challenged before the High Court on grounds that the order was passed without jurisdiction and was illegal. Violation of principles of natural justice was alleged in so far as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. It was also pleaded that no regular inquiry was conducted before terminating the petitioners who had been appointed by following due procedure.

The Court observed that the question was not whether a procedure was followed in their appointment but whether the procedure prescribed by the Statute was followed. It held that if the Rules under which the appointments were made were inapplicable, then the fact that the procedure prescribed thereunder was followed was irrelevant. It further held that following such procedure would not validate the appointments.

“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.”

Observing that no straight-jacket formula is applicable for principles of natural justice, the Court held,

“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.”

The Court held that once the institution had been upgraded to High School Level, the Rules 1978 were no longer applicable to appointments to the institution. Once the appointment of the petitioners was not under the rules applicable to the institution, the Court held that there was no useful purpose in affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Holding that the institution is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with the Rules of 1982, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Ritu Mishra and 3 others v. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 202

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 202

Click Here To Read/Download Order