Allahabad High Court
QAMARUDDIN AND 8 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The Court quashed the impugned orders and held that the competent authority may re‑examine the appointments afresh, and the petitioners are not deemed removed from service pending such verification.
Summary
The petitioners, eight assistant teachers, challenged orders dated 29 July 2025 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, which adversely affected their appointments and salary. They sought a writ restraining interference with their peaceful functioning and direction for payment of salary. The Court noted that the validity of the appointments must be determined by the competent authority after a comprehensive examination of the record, and that the respondents could not rely on an assumed fraud based solely on a later adverse report. Citing the precedent in Rajneesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P., the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed a fresh verification process, holding that the petitioners are not to be considered removed from service pending that process and that their salary claims be reconsidered in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the orders dated 29 July 2025 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, are valid in removing the petitioners from their assistant teacher positions.
- Whether the competent authority must conduct a fresh, lawful verification of the appointments rather than relying on prior adverse conclusions.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary for the period they continued to perform duties pending a final decision.
Subjects
- assistant teachers
- appointment verification
- writ petition
- quashing order
- salary entitlement
- departmental inquiry
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 17368 of 2025
Qamaruddin And 8 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : J.P. Singh, C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 today
in the Court, are taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.
2. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents, Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
nos.5 to 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
examination of the entire record and the respondents be not permitted to
proceed upon an assumption of fraud merely because an administrative
WRIA No. 17368 of 2025
2
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…