The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by two individuals seeking salary from the State exchequer, observing that the appointment of a minor to a post in an institution is per se illegal and lacks legal sanctity from its inception.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, while dismissing the petition, noted that a litigant invoking the extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is under a “solemn obligation to disclose full, true, and correct facts,” and that the petitioners in this case failed to approach the Court with clean hands.
Background
The petitioners, Luxmi Shankar Tiwari and another, claimed to be working as a Class IV employee (Peon) and a Class III employee (Clerk), respectively, at Shiv Durgeshwar Mahabir Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya in District Varanasi. The institution was brought on the grant-in-aid list on December 2, 2006.
The petitioners sought to quash an order dated December 20, 2014, passed by the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh, which had found their appointments to be illegal and not in consonance with the prescribed procedure. They also prayed for a mandamus to ensure regular payment of their salaries, including arrears.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners argued that they were initially appointed on July 1, 1980, and that their appointments were approved by the District Basic Education Officer on August 31, 1987. They alleged that the institution’s Manager had fabricated records to project them as Assistant Teachers to benefit his own relatives, prompting them to previously approach the High Court in 2008. They further contended that the Rules of 1984 were not applicable as their appointments predated the rules.
In contrast, the respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel and counsel for the Committee of Management, submitted that the managerial return for the institution had been rejected by a District Level Committee in 2006 as it was not in accordance with law.
Crucially, the respondents pointed out that Petitioner No. 2, who claimed to have been appointed as a Clerk on July 1, 1980, had a recorded date of birth of June 8, 1967. This meant he would have been only 13 years old at the time of the alleged appointment. They also highlighted that in previous litigation, the petitioners claimed to have been working since 1977, which would have made Petitioner No. 2 only 10 years old at the time.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed serious inconsistencies in the petitioners’ pleadings regarding their dates of appointment. The Court stated:
“Such mutually destructive stands clearly betray a calculated attempt to improve upon the case and to mislead the Court… The conduct of the petitioners, therefore, renders them undeserving of any indulgence from this Court.”
Regarding the age of Petitioner No. 2, the Court held:
“An appointment of a minor to a public post is per se illegal, void, and non est in the eyes of law. Such an appointment lacks legal sanctity from its very inception and is liable to be treated as nullity.”
The Court cited the Division Bench judgment in Ram Ashish Chaudhary and others vs. State of U.P. and others (2003), which affirms that appointments made in favor of minors are illegal.
Furthermore, the Court found that the appointments violated the mandatory procedures prescribed under the Rules of 1978 and the Rules of 1984, including the lack of proper advertisements, selection committees, or approval from competent authorities. The Court noted:
“It is well settled that any appointment made in contravention of statutory rules is illegal, void, and unenforceable in the eyes of law, and no legal right can be claimed on the basis thereof.”
Conclusion and Decision
The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish the legality of their appointments and that the documents relied upon by them did not inspire confidence due to conflicting particulars.
The Court held that no claim for salary can be sustained against the State exchequer unless the appointment is lawful and duly approved. Finding the writ petition devoid of merit, the Court dismissed it, upholding the Director of Education’s 2014 order.
Case Details
- Case Title: Luxmi Shankar Tiwari and another vs. State of U.P. and 4 others
- Case No.: WRIT – A No. 4474 of 2016
- Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
- Date: April 28, 2026
