Deeming Provision Under Rule 10(5)(iii) Of 1978 Rules Cannot Validate Appointment Made In Violation Of Mandatory Statutory Reservation: Allahabad High Court

"A deeming provision cannot be invoked to validate an appointment which, at its inception, was made in disregard of the mandatory conditions governing the recruitment and reservation process." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 14, 2026, held that the statutory fiction of "deemed approval" for teacher appointments under the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, cannot be used to legitimize an appointment that fundamentally violates mandatory reservation policies.

A bench of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that where an appointment is made in breach of statutory requirements, the subsequent failure of the District Basic Education Officer to communicate disapproval within 30 days does not cure the foundational illegality.

The petitioner, Anil Kumar Chaudhary, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1988 despite the post being earmarked for a Scheduled Caste candidate. The Committee of Management, ignoring government directives and the availability of qualified SC candidates, appointed the petitioner, a general category candidate, and sought formal approval. When the District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) did not respond within the time prescribed under Rule 10(5)(iii) of the 1978 Rules, the petitioner claimed that his appointment attained deemed approval status.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a candidate appointed in violation of prescribed reservation norms could invoke the Rule 10(5)(iii) deeming provision to claim the status of a regular appointee. Further, the Court examined whether continued service rendered under an interim order of the High Court could create a vested right to claim retiral benefits despite the initial appointment being held unlawful.

Court Rejects Mechanical Application of Deeming Provisions

The Court held that the deeming provision under Rule 10(5)(iii) is not an absolute tool for validation. It noted that the statutory framework requires recruitment to be conducted in strict conformity with reservation policies. Because the institution had specifically been directed to reserve the post for SC candidates, the act of filling the post with a general category candidate constituted a "foundational illegality." The Court emphasized that statutory fictions cannot be permitted to override the substantive constitutional and statutory mandate of reservation.

Effect of Interim Orders on Substantive Rights

Addressing the petitioner’s long tenure in service, the Court distinguished between service rendered under a valid appointment and service performed solely under the protection of an interim order. It clarified that an interim order is interlocutory in nature and does not confer substantive validity upon an appointment found to be procedurally flawed. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim a vested right to retiral benefits based on service that lacked initial statutory legitimacy.

No Relief for Breach of Principles of Natural Justice

The Court also addressed the argument regarding the violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not heard before his appointment was disapproved. The bench observed that the Committee of Management had been in constant communication with the DBEO regarding the irregularities. Therefore, the petitioner was adequately represented through the Management. Furthermore, the Court remarked that the opportunity of hearing cannot be utilized as a mechanism to perpetuate an appointment that suffers from a "fundamental statutory infirmity."

The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order dated December 31, 1988, which had declined approval for the petitioner's appointment. The ruling underscores that while administrative lapses by authorities in processing appointments should not prejudice candidates, such lapses cannot be weaponized to bypass mandatory recruitment rules. The Court did, however, leave open the limited possibility of examining the petitioner’s claim for salary for the period of actual service rendered, provided it aligns with the specific terms of the interim order and applicable laws.

Date of Decision: 14 September 2026