Appointment of a minor to a public post is void ab initio and legally unenforceable.

The petitioners claimed they were appointed as Class IV (Peon) and Class III (Clerk) employees in a Junior High School on 01.07.1980

The institution was brought under the state grant-in-aid list in December 2006

The petitioners alleged that the School Manager manipulated records to list them as Assistant Teachers to favor his kin

Following a previous court direction in 2012, the Director of Education (Basic) issued an impugned order dated 20.12.2014, rejecting their claims

Respondents contended that Petitioner No. 2 was born in 1967, making him approximately 13 years old at the time of the alleged 1980 appointment

In the 1980 appointment, the mandatory recruitment procedures under the 1984 Rules were never followed

1. Whether the appointments of the petitioners were valid and followed the mandatory statutory procedures prescribed under the relevant Service Rules

2. Whether an appointment made when a candidate (Petitioner No. 2) was a minor is legally sustainable

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of salary from the State exchequer despite discrepancies in appointment dates and lack of financial approval

U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group ‘D’ Employees) Rules, 1984, which mandate minimum age (18 years), educational qualifications, and specific recruitment procedures including advertisement and approval by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari

U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978

Division Bench precedent in Ram Ashish Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. (2003), which establishes that any appointment of a minor to a post is void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of law

The court found that the petitioners failed to approach the court with "clean hands," noting they shifted their claimed appointment year from 1977 in previous litigation to 1980 in the current writ

Regarding Petitioner No. 2, the court observed that even if the 1980 date was accepted, he was a minor (age 13) and thus ineligible under Rule 6 of the 1984 Rules; such an appointment is a nullity and cannot create legal rights

The court held that the recruitment process was fundamentally flawed as there was no evidence of public advertisement, participation of a government nominee in the selection committee, or formal financial sanction

The court determined that the documents relied upon by the petitioners were of "grave and legitimate doubt" due to conflicting reference numbers and divergent particulars

The petitioners failed to establish the legality of their appointments, the impugned order of the Director of Education was upheld as it suffered from no perversity or infirmity, and the writ petition was dismissed with relief for salary and arrears denied