Court Allows Continued Employment Despite Void Appointment, Denies Back Pay for Non-Working Periods
In a significant judgment delivered on January 27, 2026, the Allahabad High Court has granted relief to Anita Rani, a teacher whose appointment was previously declared void-ab-initio due to exceeding the maximum age limit at the time of recruitment. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Indrajeet Shukla, ruled that while Rani's appointment was indeed irregular, she should be allowed to continue in her position based on equitable grounds, considering her seven years of service and the absence of any fraudulent conduct.
The dispute arose after Anita Rani, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher following her application under the Special BTC training program. Despite the age relaxation of five years applicable to SC candidates, Rani exceeded the permissible age limit, being 48 years and two months old at the time of application, and over 50 years at the time of appointment.
The High Court acknowledged that her appointment violated the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, specifically Rule 6, which sets forth age limits for applicants. However, the court took a sympathetic view, noting that Rani did not engage in any fraud or misrepresentation during her application process. Her correct date of birth was duly mentioned, and her application was accepted by authorities who failed to identify the age discrepancy at the time.
Drawing on precedents such as Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P., the court emphasized that justice should prevail in cases where appointments are made erroneously without wrongdoing by the appointee. The court balanced the equities by allowing Rani to continue her service but ruled that she would not receive salary for periods she did not perform her duties.
The decision overturns previous rulings, including the order dated October 28, 2023, by the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad, which had cancelled her appointment, and the dismissal of her writ petition by a Single Judge on May 8, 2025. The court found that the authorities' belated action to annul the appointment after seven years was unjust, particularly since Rani had served the State diligently during that time.
This judgment underscores the importance of considering the merits and bona fides of candidates in service law disputes, especially when procedural errors occur without any fraudulent intent by the appointee.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Appointment of candidate who exceeded maximum age limit - Appointment held void-ab-initio by authorities - High Court upheld continuation of service on equitable grounds, considering absence of fraud or misrepresentation and significant length of service, but denied salary for the period of non-performance.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Rule 6
Anita Rani v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2844465
