Authorities Cannot Reopen Validated Appointments Once Final: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Teachers
The Court held that once the validity of appointments has attained finality and the appellate court confines consideration to a limited issue, authorities cannot reopen settled issues or pass adverse orders without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court held that once objections regarding the selection and appointment of employees have been duly examined and settled, the same cannot be reopened by authorities in subsequent proceedings, particularly when the scope of consideration is specifically limited by appellate directions.
The Court further held that any action taken in excess of such jurisdiction, and without affording an opportunity of hearing, is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
The Court was hearing writ petitions challenging a series of orders whereby the petitioners, appointed as Assistant Teachers in a recognised aided institution, were restrained from discharging duties and denied salary, despite earlier approval of their appointments and directions for payment of salary.
A Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed: “once the aforesaid direction had been issued, the scope of consideration before the respondents stood confined to the determination of the petitioners’ entitlement to salary for the relevant period, … there was, therefore, no occasion or jurisdiction for the respondent authorities to reopen the issue relating to the validity of the petitioners’ selection, particularly when all objections in that regard had already been duly examined and addressed while passing the order”.
Senior Advocate Adwait Singh and Advocate Adarsh Singh represented the petitioner.
Background
The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in 2006 after being selected and approved by the competent authority. The institution was subsequently included in the grant-in-aid list, and while other teachers received salaries from the State exchequer, the petitioners were initially denied this benefit.
Following representations, a Government Order dated 19.12.2014 provided for payment of salary, and upon scrutiny, the Regional Approval Committee, by order dated 14.08.2018, approved payment of salary to the petitioners.
However, disputes arose regarding payment of arrears for the period 2014–2018. The matter travelled to the High Court, and in a Special Appeal, the Division Bench confined the scope of consideration to the issue of payment of salary and arrears, directing the competent authority to decide the same after due verification and hearing.
Despite this limited mandate, the authorities proceeded to reopen the issue of the validity of appointments and passed orders declaring the appointments void, ultimately rescinding the earlier approval and restraining the petitioners from discharging duties.
Court’s Observation
The Court held that the scope of inquiry after the Division Bench’s order was strictly confined to determining the entitlement of the petitioners to salary and arrears. It observed: “Upon due consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that once all objections pertaining to the selection of the petitioners had been duly examined and adjudicated, culminating in the order dated 14.08.2018 directing payment of salary, the issue that remained to be determined was confined to the entitlement of the petitioners to salary for the period from 2014 to 2018…”
“It is, therefore, manifest that the respondent authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in seeking to reopen the question relating to the validity of the petitioners’ selection… Such an exercise… is impermissible in the eyes of law,” the Court added.
The Court further held that there was no occasion or jurisdiction for the respondent authorities to reopen the issue relating to the validity of the petitioners’ selection, particularly when all objections… had already been duly examined.
The Court found that the authorities acted in clear disregard of the appellate directions and ventured into issues which had already attained finality. It held that such conduct amounted to exceeding jurisdiction and unsettling concluded matters.
On the issue of natural justice, the Court strongly deprecated the manner in which the impugned orders were passed, observing that “such action is patently arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and clearly unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
The Court also noted that the impugned order rescinding the earlier approval was passed ex parte, without notice or inquiry, thereby rendering it legally untenable.
Further, the Court relied on settled precedents to hold that long years of continuous service, particularly where appointments were not tainted by fraud, create a legitimate equity in favour of employees and cannot be disturbed on technical grounds.
Conclusion
The Court held that the respondent authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction in reopening the issue of the validity of appointments and in rescinding earlier orders, in violation of both appellate directions and principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petitions, directing that all consequential benefits be extended to the petitioners.
Cause Title: Smt. Meenakshi Sharma & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC80501)