Allahabad High Court
KULDEEP NARAIN AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The Court quashed the impugned orders and held that the validity of the petitioners' appointments must be determined afresh by the competent authority after a proper verification, and the petitioners should not be deemed removed from service.
Summary
The petitioners, five Assistant Teachers, challenged two orders dated 29 July 2025 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, which alleged fraud in their appointments and affected their salaries. The Court noted that no counter‑affidavit was filed by the Committee of Management and that the procedural validity of the appointments had not been established. It held that the ultimate validity of the appointments must be decided by the competent authority after a comprehensive examination of the record, and the State could not rely on an assumption of fraud based solely on a later administrative report. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned orders, directed that the appointments not be treated as terminated, and ordered a fresh verification in line with the precedent set in Rajneesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P. The petitioners' claim for salary for periods they actually served was to be reconsidered by the competent authority, and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the impugned orders dated 29 July 2025 validly terminate the petitioners' appointments as Assistant Teachers.
- Whether the State may proceed on an assumption of fraud without a proper departmental inquiry and counter‑affidavit.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary for periods during which they performed duties despite the orders.
- Whether the competent authority must re‑examine the appointments afresh in accordance with law.
Subjects
- appointment
- administrative law
- departmental inquiry
- wrongful termination
- salary
- due process
- Uttar Pradesh
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13529 of 2025
Kuldeep Narain And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adarsh Singh, Shri Krishna Mishra,
Tripurari Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashish
Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
and perused the records.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that neither counter-affidavit has
been filed on behalf of Committee of Management nor it has not come up
with any record to establish the fact that the petitioners have been appointed
after following the due procedure prescribed under law.
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. 13529 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 without calling for counter
affidavit of respondent no. 4.
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). The records pertaining to selection / appointment of the petitioners
may be called upon from the Committee of Management of the respective
Institutions, in case required. 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…