Authorities cannot reopen settled appointment validity when judicial directions limit inquiry to salary and arrears.

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in a recognized Junior High School in November and December 2006, following a selection process approved by the District Basic Education Officer

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

While other staff received salaries from the State, the petitioners were initially excluded, leading to a Government Order in 2014 and a subsequent Regional Approval Committee order in 2018, which approved their appointments and directed salary payments effective from December 2014

Seeking arrears for the period of 2014–2018, the petitioners filed a Special Appeal (No. 488 of 2024). The Division Bench directed the Secretary, Basic Education, to consider the claim for salary and arrears

However, the Secretary issued an order on 26.08.2025 declaring the petitioners' original 2006 appointments void, citing a lack of prescribed training qualifications (B.Ed vs. BTC) and procedural advertisements

Consequently, the petitioners were restrained from functioning, prompting this writ petition

1. Whether the respondent authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by reopening the validity of the petitioners' 2006 appointments when the High Court's mandate was limited to the determination of salary and arrears.

2. Whether an appointment made and approved nearly two decades prior can be invalidated on technical grounds of qualification or procedure after long, uninterrupted service.

The Court applied the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, and the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978

It relied on the principle of "Legitimate Equity" established in District Basic Education Officer v. Jagdamba Singh, holding that long-standing service should not be unsettled on technicalities

The Court further applied the doctrine from Kalindi Pandey v. State of U.P., where 14 years of experience outweighed the initial absence of a training certificate

Crucially, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s order dated 14.07.2017 (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14907/2009), which protected teachers with B.Ed qualifications appointed before the 2008 rule amendment

the principles from State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari and Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh regarding the protection of long-term employees where no fraud is attributable to the appointee

The Court reasoned that the respondent authorities acted ultra vires by expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the Division Bench's specific direction, which was confined to the "limited question of payment of salary and arrears"

The Court noted that the Regional Approval Committee had already scrutinized and validated the selection process and qualifications in its 2018 order, which attained finality

Regarding the qualification dispute, the Court observed that at the time of appointment (2006), the school was not yet aided, and the subsequent inclusion in the grant-in-aid list could not retrospectively invalidate appointments made under then-prevailing norms

The Court emphasized that the petitioners had rendered approximately 20 years of service without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation

Following Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that even if there were minor procedural irregularities or a contested qualification (B.Ed), the length of service and the State’s prior approvals created an equitable right that precluded the State from terminating them on technical grounds

The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders dated 26.08.2025, 30.08.2025, 01.09.2025, and 08.09.2025

The Court directed that the petitioners be provided with all entitled benefits, effectively restoring their service and confirming their right to salary and arrears