Allahabad High Court

SMT. ANUPRIYA RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

Holding

The Court quashed the impugned orders dated 29 July 2025 and allowed the writ petition, directing a fresh, lawful verification of the appointment per the Rajneesh Upadhyay precedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Anupriya Rai, an Assistant Teacher, challenged two orders dated 29 July 2025 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, which alleged irregularities in her appointment and sought to withhold her salary. The petition argued that the orders were based on an assumption of fraud without a proper departmental inquiry or counter‑affidavit from the Committee of Management. The Court noted that the matter fell within the precedent set in Rajneesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P., emphasizing that the validity of the appointment must be determined by a competent authority after a lawful and comprehensive examination of the record. It observed that the impugned orders were premature, given the existence of earlier departmental inquiries, criminal proceedings, and conflicting positions of the respondents. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders, directing the authority to re‑examine the appointment afresh in accordance with the directions in Rajneesh Upadhyay and to consider the petitioner’s claim for salary. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

What is the validity of the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Teacher under the applicable procedural requirements?
Whether the orders dated 29 July 2025, which assumed fraud and directed removal of the petitioner, can be upheld without a full departmental inquiry?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary for periods she performed duties despite the impugned orders?

Subjects

appointment
due process
administrative law
quashing order
salary entitlement
public service
verification

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 19213 of 2025

Smt. Anupriya Rai
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the
petitioner, 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 petitioner has further sought a writ, order or direction restraining
the respondents from interfering with her peaceful functioning as Assistant
Teachers in her institution and for a consequential direction to the
respondents to ensure payment of her 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
examination of the entire record and the respondents be not permitted to
proceed upon an assumption of fraud merely because an administrative
WRIA No. 19213 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 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…