Illegal Appointment Does Not Mature Into Legality By Efflux Of Time; Salary From Public Exchequer Only For Demonstrably Legal Appointments: Allahabad High Court

"An illegal appointment does not mature into legality by efflux of time. Since the petitioners were permitted to function, if at all, only for a short duration... on the basis of appointments which were not made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law, they cannot derive any equitable advantage so as to seek continuance of service or salary from the State Exchequer," Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that mere continuance in service or the receipt of salary for a certain period cannot sanctify an appointment that is fundamentally dehors the statutory framework.

A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that appointments based on forged or unverified records are void ab initio and do not crystallize into a vested right merely because of the passage of time. The Court emphasized that a person claiming salary from the public exchequer must demonstrate that their appointment was made strictly in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure.

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in 1996 at Dharmendra Kumar Janta Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, a recognized Junior High School in District Maharajganj. Their salaries were regularly paid until August 2000, after which payments were withheld pending an inquiry into the validity of the post-creation and the selection process. The petitioners approached the High Court multiple times, eventually challenging a 2023 order by the District Basic Education Officer (BSA) which rejected their claims for salary and retiral benefits on the grounds that their appointments were based on forged documents.

The primary question before the Court was whether the petitioners' appointments were made against duly sanctioned posts in compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. The Court also had to determine if long-standing service and interim judicial protection could legitimize appointments that were found to be procedurally and substantively infirm.

Foundational Burden To Establish Lawful Appointment Rests On Petitioner

The Court observed that the foundational burden to establish a lawful appointment squarely rests upon the person claiming salary from the State. It noted that mere continuance in service for a period of time or receipt of salary for certain years cannot sanctify an appointment that lacks a legal basis. The Bench stated that a person seeking enforcement of monetary claims from public funds must provide unimpeachable documentary evidence of the legality of their recruitment.

Post-Creation Orders Found To Be Forged And Fabricated

While examining the records, the Court took note of grave discrepancies in the post-creation orders relied upon by the petitioners. It found that an alleged 1988 order was addressed to a Postmaster instead of the school authorities, rendering its authenticity doubtful. Furthermore, multiple orders for additional sections were purportedly issued on the same date with identical reference numbers, which the Court described as "wholly incongruous" to the statutory scheme governing educational institutions.

"The very substratum of the petitioners’ claim remains shrouded in uncertainty and suspicion. Such glaring inconsistencies cannot be brushed aside as mere administrative lapses, especially where the petitioners seek enforcement of monetary claims from public funds."

Appointments Made Beyond Statutory Period Prescribed Under Section 9(2)

The Bench found substance in the respondent's argument that the appointments were ex facie contrary to Section 9(2) of the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978. Even if the posts were assumed to be created in 1980 or 1988, the appointments were only made in 1996. The Court held that under Section 9(2), approval for newly created posts is deemed withdrawn if appointments are not made within the stipulated three-month period.

No Estoppel Against Law; Equity Cannot Override Statutory Mandate

Addressing the petitioners' plea regarding their long service, the Court held that equity cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. It noted that there can be no estoppel against the law and that long-standing appointments should only be protected where they have continued uninterruptedly for decades against lawful or substantially compliant procedures. In this case, the petitioners' service was relatively brief before coming under scrutiny, and the appointments were tainted by serious discrepancies.

"Continuance in service or lapse of time cannot legitimize an appointment made in violation of statutory provisions or based on doubtful and unverified records. It is a trite law that salary is payable for the work actually performed, save in exceptional circumstances."

Lack Of Requisite Qualifications For Assistant Teachers

The Court also highlighted that several petitioners failed to satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements under Rule 4 of the 1978 Rules. Referring to the precedent in Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P., the Bench reiterated that where approval orders are not verifiable from dispatch records and minimum qualifications are absent, the appointments cannot be held to be lawful, nor can such appointees claim salary from the State exchequer.

The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish that their appointments were made against duly sanctioned posts or in accordance with the 1978 Rules. Finding no perversity or illegality in the inquiry report or the BSA's order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. However, it granted the petitioners liberty to move an application before the authorities for salary pertaining only to the period they actually worked, subject to verification of records.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026