In a significant judgment granting relief to a teacher whose services were terminated after seven years due to being overage at the time of appointment, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the termination order. The Division Bench held that while the appointment was erroneous regarding age eligibility, the appellant could not be penalized after a considerable period of service, provided there was no fraud or misrepresentation on her part.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, partly allowed the Special Appeal filed by Anita Rani, overturning the Single Judge’s order that had upheld the cancellation of her appointment.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Anita Rani, completed her Special Basic Training Certificate (BTC) course in June 2012 and passed the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in May 2014. On December 9, 2014, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification for the recruitment of 15,000 Assistant Teachers. The appellant applied for the post on January 5, 2015.
At the time of her application, the appellant was 48 years, 8 months, and 4 days old. Despite exceeding the standard age limit, her application was accepted, and she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on July 2, 2016.
However, on December 20, 2017, a notice was issued requiring her to explain why her appointment should not be cancelled, as she had crossed the age of 50 on the date of her appointment. Subsequently, by an order dated October 28, 2023, the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, declared her appointment void-ab-initio (void from the beginning).
The appellant challenged this termination in a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on May 8, 2025. The Single Judge observed that even with the age relaxation granted to Scheduled Caste candidates and additional relaxations, the appellant was ineligible at the time of application and appointment.
Submissions of the Parties
Senior Advocate Ashok Khare, appearing for the appellant, argued that although the appellant was overage, she had disclosed her correct date of birth in the application form. He contended that the acceptance of her form and subsequent appointment were acts of the respondent authorities, and no fraud or concealment was committed by the appellant.
The counsel emphasized that the appellant had served for seven years before her termination. He relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Vikas Pratap Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, arguing that appointments should not be disturbed at a belated stage if they were not the result of fraud or misrepresentation.
On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the State and the counsel for the Basic Education Officer argued that the appellant was clearly ineligible under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. They submitted that on the date of completion of her training in 2012, she was already over 46 years old, crossing the 45-year limit (40 years plus 5 years relaxation for SC candidates). Furthermore, she was over 50 years old at the time of her appointment, making the appointment illegal from the start.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench examined the age eligibility and concurred that the appellant was indeed overage. The Court noted that even after applying the relevant relaxations under Rule 6 of the 1981 Rules, the appellant had crossed the maximum age limit on the date of her application.
However, the Court shifted its focus to the aspect of equity and the conduct of the parties. The Bench observed:
“It is abundantly clear as day light that the respondent authorities accepted the application form and offered appointment with open eyes.”
The Court further stated:
“Attempt to file an application for securing job cannot be termed as to be any fraudulent act as admittedly correct date of birth was mentioned in the application form and nothing was concealed at the end of the appellant. It was the authorities, who ought to have been remaining vigilant, which they utterly failed.”
Referring to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2013), the Court reiterated that while no legal right vests in a candidate who obtains employment by fraud, a sympathetic view is taken in cases of irregular appointments where the appointee is not at fault.
The Bench quoted the Supreme Court:
“However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment.”
The Court held that the Single Judge had failed to consider the factor of the appellant’s seven-year continuance in service and the absence of fraud.
“Therefore, in view of facts of this case as noted above, viz. continuance of appellant-writ petitioner for considerable period of 7 years coupled with the fact that the respondent authority could not lay any foundation of fraud and manipulation practised by appellant-writ petitioner to secure the appointment and further error of judgement if any (in computing the correct age of the petitioner) was of the respondents, that aspect may have escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge.”
Decision
The Division Bench set aside the impugned order of the Single Judge dated May 8, 2025, and the termination order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Moradabad, dated October 28, 2023.
Balancing the equities, the Court directed:
“We direct that the appellant shall be permitted to continue to hold the post in question, but she shall not be entitled to the payment of salary for the period she has not performed her duties/ remained out of service.”
The appeal was partly allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Anita Rani Versus State of U.P. and 4 Others
- Case Number: Special Appeal No. 646 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla
- Counsel for Appellant: Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate; Umang Srivastava
- Counsel for Respondents: Akanksha Sharma (C.S.C.), Ankit Gaur (Standing Counsel)
