A forged appointment approval cannot confer an enforceable right to salary from the State exchequer.

The petitioner claimed appointment as an Assistant Teacher in an aided and recognised junior high school on 1 July 1977, pursuant to which he allegedly joined and continuously worked in the institution.

He relied upon an approval order dated 29 July 1982 and contended that the District Basic Education Officer subsequently directed payment of salary with effect from 1 March 1991 by order dated 9 March 2000.

As salary was not released, the petitioner filed earlier writ proceedings.

By order dated 25 February 2014, this Court directed the Director of Education (Basic) to examine the petitioner’s claim, consider the relevant records, provide an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order.

Upon reconsideration, the Director rejected the claim on 2 June 2015, finding doubts regarding the genuineness and legal efficacy of the alleged approval, the absence of a sanctioned post, and the petitioner’s absence from subsequent working-strength records.

1. Whether the Director’s order dated 2 June 2015 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for salary was arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to the earlier approval order dated 29 July 1982 and the order dated 9 March 2000.

2. Whether the unchallenged administrative order dated 9 March 2000 conclusively established the validity of the petitioner’s appointment, the existence of a sanctioned post, and his entitlement to salary from the State exchequer.

3. Whether the petitioner could claim salary when the alleged foundational approval was found to be forged or unsupported by the authentic departmental record and his name was absent from subsequent institutional records.

The Court applied the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, and the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978, under which salary from the State exchequer depends upon a lawful appointment against a duly sanctioned post.

It also considered the Government Orders dated 30 April 2010 and 31 January 2013, which required verification of appointments and sanctioned posts before release of salary.

The Court relied on R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105, Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100, Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma, (2020) 15 SCC 466, for the principle that an appointment founded on fraud, forgery, or a fundamental legal defect is void and cannot generate enforceable rights to salary or other consequential service benefits.

An administrative order cannot create a sanctioned post, validate a forged document, or confer legality upon an otherwise void appointment.

The Court held that its earlier direction required a fresh, record-based examination and did not validate the alleged 1982 approval or mandate mechanical implementation of the 2000 order.

On examination, the alleged approval was not supported by the authentic departmental record and was found to be forged or otherwise legally ineffective; no contemporaneous order sanctioning the post was produced.

The petitioner’s name was also absent from the Managerial Return, the 2010 working-strength statement, and the 2011 inspection report, while the Manager stated that the petitioner had worked only until 2005.

Consequently, the Court found that the 9 March 2000 administrative order was not a judicial determination of the appointment’s validity and could not override the absence of a lawful foundational approval or sanctioned post.

Actual service, passage of time, alleged payment to junior teachers, or administrative acquiescence could not transform a void or unauthorised appointment into a lawful entitlement against public funds.

The petitioner also failed to show perversity, jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or non-consideration of relevant material in the impugned order.

It held that the order dated 9 March 2000 did not conclusively establish the validity of his appointment or entitlement to salary, and that no enforceable right to salary survived once the alleged approval dated 29 July 1982 was found to be forged or unsupported and no sanctioned post was established.

The writ petition challenging the order dated 2 June 2015 was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.