Appointment Of Minor To Public Post Is Void Ab Initio; No Right Can Flow From Such Illegal Appointment: Allahabad High Court
The Court held that any appointment made in violation of statutory requirements, including the appointment of a minor, is null in law and cannot confer any enforceable right, including a claim for salary.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that appointment of a minor to a public post is per se illegal and void ab initio, and no legal or equitable right can flow from such an inherently invalid appointment.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh, whereby the claim of the petitioners for recognition of their appointments and payment of salary from the State exchequer had been rejected.
A Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed, “an appointment of a minor to a public post is per se illegal, void, and non est in the eyes of law… such an appointment lacks legal sanctity from its very inception and is liable to be treated as nullity.”
The Court further held, “it is a settled principle that no right, whether equitable or legal, can flow from an act which is void ab initio… any claim founded upon such an inherently illegal appointment is wholly unsustainable.”
Advocate Kailash Singh Kushwaha appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Jitendra Singh appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioners claimed to have been appointed in a Junior High School as non-teaching staff and sought quashing of the impugned order rejecting their claim for salary and protection of their service.
It was their case that their appointments dated back several decades and had been approved by the competent authority, and that they had been continuously working in the institution.
The respondents, however, disputed the validity of such appointments, contending that the records relied upon by the petitioners were inconsistent and appeared to be manipulated, and that no valid approval or financial sanction had ever been granted.
It was further pointed out that petitioner no. 2 was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged appointment, thereby rendering the claim inherently untenable.
Court’s Observation
At the outset, the Court noted serious inconsistencies in the pleadings of the petitioners with respect to the date of appointment, observing that they had taken contradictory stands in different proceedings, thereby undermining the credibility of their claim.
The Court held that such conduct disentitles a litigant from invoking the equitable jurisdiction of the Court, particularly where material facts have been suppressed or distorted.
Proceeding to examine the legality of the appointments, the Court found that even if the version of the petitioners was accepted, petitioner no. 2 was admittedly a minor at the time of appointment.
In this context, the Court observed, “it remains an admitted and incontrovertible position that petitioner no. 2 was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged appointment… any appointment of a minor… is impermissible and void ab initio.”
The Court further relied upon the Division Bench judgment in Ram Ashish Chaudhary (2003), holding that such appointments are per se illegal and cannot be recognised in law.
The Court also examined the statutory framework governing recruitment, including the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group ‘D’ Employees) Rules, 1984, which prescribe minimum age and qualifications for appointment.
It found that the mandatory requirements of the recruitment rules had not been complied with, and that there was no material on record to show issuance of advertisement, constitution of a valid selection committee, or grant of approval by the competent authority.
The Court held that such fundamental lapses vitiate the entire selection process, rendering the appointments illegal and unenforceable.
It further noted that conflicting documents placed on record gave rise to serious doubts regarding their authenticity, and that the petitioners had failed to establish the legality of their appointments.
The Court also held that in the absence of a valid appointment and financial approval, no claim for salary can be sustained against the State exchequer.
Conclusion
The Court held that the appointments relied upon by the petitioners were illegal and void ab initio, and that no right could be claimed based on such appointments.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief, including payment of salary.
Cause Title: Luxmi Shankar Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:94774)
Appearances
Petitioners: Kailash Singh Kushwaha; Kalpna Upadhyay; P.K. Upadhyay
Respondents: C.S.C.; Jitendra Singh; Nisheeth Yadav; Raj Kumar Dhama
