Authorities are barred from belatedly challenging teacher appointments on training grounds omitted from earlier litigation.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the managing committee of a school on 7 August 2010, and the appointment was approved by the competent authority in January 2011.

He was untrained when appointed, but later acquired teacher training in the 2013–2015 session; the result was declared on 31 March 2019.

In 2017, the authorities withdrew approval of his appointment. The High Court set that decision aside in an earlier writ proceeding, but a Division Bench later permitted the State to reconsider the matter after notice, while directing that the petitioner’s service continue and that salary be paid until a final decision.

Following a show-cause process, the Director withdrew approval in January 2023, relying, among other grounds, on the petitioner’s lack of training at appointment; the District Education Officer subsequently cancelled the appointment in November 2023. The petitioner challenged both orders in the present proceeding.

1. Whether the respondents could withdraw approval and cancel the petitioner’s appointment in 2023 on the ground that he was untrained when appointed, when that ground had not been raised in the earlier proceedings.

2. Whether the Supreme Court’s direction allowing persons appointed before 31 March 2015 to acquire the required training by 31 August 2028 applied to the petitioner.

The State Government’s circular dated 4 March 1993 required the managing committee, after proper advertisement, to appoint trained candidates, subject to approval; the judgment also records a departmental ban on appointments under Letter No. 1532 dated 21 August 2007.

The Court applied the principles of constructive res judicata, waiver and acquiescence, holding that the respondents could not raise belatedly a ground that they had not advanced in the earlier proceedings.

It also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Abdul Baqui Ansari & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No(s). 9848 of 2026, which allowed persons appointed before 31 March 2015 who lacked the required D.El.Ed qualification to continue and acquire it by 31 August 2028, including persons terminated pursuant to the High Court’s order.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s lack of training at the time of appointment was the basis of the Director’s 2023 decision, but the respondents had not relied on the 1993 circular or that specific ground when withdrawing approval in 2017, in the earlier writ proceeding, or in the State’s appeal. It therefore held that the respondents were barred from raising the ground at that late stage by constructive res judicata and were also precluded by waiver and acquiescence.

In addition, the petitioner had been appointed before 31 March 2015 and had acquired training by 2019. Applying the Supreme Court’s extension of time for pre-cut-off-date appointees to obtain the qualification, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s appointment could not be cancelled on the basis relied upon in the impugned orders.

It directed the petitioner’s reinstatement and payment of all consequential benefits within three months of receipt or production of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition was allowed.