Allahabad High Court
ANIL KUMAR YADAV AND 8 OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The impugned orders dated 29 July 2025 are quashed, and the competent authority may re‑examine the appointments afresh, with the petitioners not deemed removed from service pending a final decision.
Summary
The petitioners, eight assistant teachers, challenged two orders dated 29 July 2025 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, which allegedly removed them from service and affected their salary. They sought a writ restraining interference with their peaceful functioning and direction for payment of salary. The Court observed that the validity of their appointments must be determined by the competent authority after a comprehensive examination of the entire record, and that the respondents could not rely on an assumption of fraud based solely on a later administrative report. Considering the departmental inquiry, subsequent government action, criminal proceedings, and conflicting official records, the Court held that affirming the impugned orders would not serve justice. Accordingly, the Court quashed the orders, directed the competent authority to re‑examine the matter afresh, and held that the petitioners should not be deemed removed from service pending a final decision, with their salary claims to be reconsidered per applicable statutes.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate authority and procedure for determining the validity of the petitioners' appointments as Assistant Teachers?
- Whether the impugned orders dated 29 July 2025, which adverse conclusions against the petitioners, can be upheld or must be quashed?
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary for periods they performed duties despite the impugned orders?
Subjects
- appointment validity
- administrative law
- service termination
- salary entitlement
- departmental inquiry
- fraud assumption
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13311 of 2025
Anil Kumar Yadav And 8 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendu Ojha, Sneh Pandey, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harindra Prasad
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Supplementary counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent
nos.4&8 today in the Court, are taken on records.
2. Heard Mr. Shatrughan Sonwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shivendu
Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents,
Mr. Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4&8 and
perused the records.
3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the two impugned
orders dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh / respondent
no. 1. The petitioners have further sought a writ, order or direction
restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful functioning
as Assistant Teachers in their respective institutions and for a consequential
direction to the respondents to ensure payment of their salary as and when
the same falls due.
4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the
present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment and order
dated 25.09.2026 passed by this Court in Rajneesh Upadhyay and 14
others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, Writ-A No. 11862 of 2025.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this
Court finds that the question of ultimate validity of the appointment may be
determined by the competent authority upon a lawful and comprehensive
WRIA No. 13311 of 2025
2
examination of the entire record and the respondents be not permitted to
proceed upon an assumption of fraud merely because an administrative
report subsequently takes a view different from the view earlier taken by the
competent authorities.
6. In the peculiar facts of the case, and particularly having regard to the
earlier departmental inquiry, the subsequent government action thereon, the
criminal proceedings, the prolonged continuance of the petitioners pursuant
to government's approvals, the conflicting stands emerging from the
respondents themselves, and the disputed contemporaneous official record,
the ends of justice would not be served in affirming the impugned action or
by conclusively foreclosing the State from undertaking a lawful verification.
7. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court
proceeds to finally decide the matter at this stage.
8. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the observations and directions
made in Rajneesh Upadhyay (supra). The impugned orders dated
29.07.2026 are quashed, insofar as adverse conclusions are recorded therein
against the petitioners. The competent authority shall be at liberty to proceed
afresh in accordance with the directions contained in Rajneesh Upadhyay
(supra). Until such exercise is completed and a final reasoned decision is
taken in accordance with law, the petitioners shall not be treated as having
been removed from service merely on the strength of the impugned orders.
Their claim for salary for the period during which they have actually
discharged their duties shall be reconsidered by the competent authority in
accordance with the applicable statutory and financial framework,
uninfluenced by the findings which have been set aside in Rajneesh
Upadhyay (supra).
9. No order as to costs.
September 29, 2026
Jitendra/-
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…