Appointment without a sanctioned post or requisite qualification cannot warrant regularisation despite long service.

The petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management on 23 November 1999. At the time of appointment, he possessed a B.Sc. in Mathematics and a qualification described as “Shiksha Alankar,” which he claimed was equivalent to a B.Ed.

As salary was not paid, he filed Writ Petition No. 708 (SS) of 2000, in which an interim order was passed on 19 April 2000. The State’s special appeal against that order was dismissed on 27 October 2009.

After a vacancy arose on 30 June 2010, the Committee of Management requisitioned the post for appointment of a Hindi teacher. Since no appointment was made pursuant to the requisition, the petitioner was paid salary from July 2010 until 14 August 2013, after which payment stopped.

The petitioner’s claim for salary and regularisation was rejected by order dated 22 October 2020 on the grounds that there was no sanctioned post and that he lacked the requisite statutory qualification.

In Writ-A No. 7109 of 2026, the petitioner challenged the respondents’ action in sending a requisition and/or making an appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade, Mathematics, pending consideration of his claim for regularisation.

Whether the petitioner’s appointment was valid when it was made without prior approval of a sanctioned post under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971?

Whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for appointment as a teacher under Appendix-A, Chapter II of the Uttar Pradesh Education Manual, particularly whether “Shiksha Alankar” was equivalent to the prescribed training qualification?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularisation under Section 33-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982, on the basis of his long and continuous service?

Whether the petitioner could restrain the respondents from requisitioning or filling the Mathematics teacher post until his regularisation claim was decided?

The Court applied Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, which prohibits creation of a teaching or other post without prior approval of the Director or an authorised officer.

It applied Appendix-A, Chapter II of the Uttar Pradesh Education Manual, under which a teacher must possess the prescribed subject qualification and a recognised training qualification such as L.T., B.T., B.Ed. or an equivalent degree or diploma.

The Court also considered Section 33-G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982, which permits regularisation only where the statutory conditions—including prescribed qualifications, the nature and period of appointment, continuous service, and suitability—are satisfied.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in Special Appeal Defective No. 673 of 2014 and Shesh Mani Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, (2009) 15 SCC 436, the Court held that long service cannot validate an appointment made in contravention of statutory requirements; sympathy, experience, or prolonged employment cannot by themselves create a legal right to a writ of mandamus.

The Court found that the petitioner had been appointed against a post for which no approval had been obtained from the competent authority. This directly violated Section 9 of the 1971 Act and prevented the appointment from acquiring statutory validity.

The Court further held that the petitioner did not satisfy the qualification requirements in Appendix-A. The communications dated 6 September 2000 and 25 June 2002 did not establish that “Shiksha Alankar” was equivalent to the prescribed B.Ed. or other recognised training qualification.

Since both the sanctioned-post requirement and the qualification requirement were absent, the appointment was invalid from its inception.

The petitioner’s long service and prior payment of salary could not cure these statutory defects or confer eligibility for regularisation under Section 33-G.

Consequently, he had no enforceable right to prevent the respondents from filling the Mathematics teacher post.

It held that the petitioner’s appointment was made without approval of a sanctioned post and without the requisite qualification.

However, the Court clarified that the petitioner could claim salary from the Committee of Management.

Writ-A No. 7109 of 2026 was also dismissed, as the petitioner, being ineligible from the date of appointment, had no right to restrain the respondents from requisitioning or filling the Mathematics teacher post.