Blanket Cancellation of Selection Process Without Segregating Tainted Candidates or Granting Hearing is Arbitrary and Illegal

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Director of Education acted within his jurisdiction and followed the principles of natural justice by cancelling the entire selection of Assistant Teachers without notice or individual inquiry.

The court held

The court held that the prior judicial findings regarding Principals did not apply to Assistant Teachers.

It also directed

The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order dated 25.06.2012 insofar as it related to the selection of Assistant Teachers.

The respondents were commanded to release and disburse all outstanding salary and consequential dues from September 2017 to the present within three weeks and to continue paying regular monthly salaries thereafter.

01Facts

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in various Sanskrit Institutions following a selection process initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Regulations, 2009.

¶ 4-5

Vacancies were advertised in September 2011, panels were issued by the Joint Director of Education on 12.12.2011, and the petitioners joined their posts in late December 2011.

¶ 4, 7, 9

On 26.03.2012, following complaints of irregularities, the Director of Education (Secondary) stayed the petitioners’ salaries.

¶ 12

Subsequently, on 25.06.2012, based on a High Court direction in a separate matter (Smt. Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P.) involving the selection of Principals, the Director cancelled the entire selection process for both Principals and Assistant Teachers across five divisions.

¶ 13, 16

The petitioners challenged this wholesale cancellation, asserting they were untainted and had been denied natural justice.

¶ 16, 26

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Director of Education acted within his jurisdiction and followed the principles of natural justice by cancelling the entire selection of Assistant Teachers without notice or individual inquiry.

¶ 19, 48

ii.2. Whether the findings of irregularities in the selection of Principals could be automatically applied to the distinct selection process of Assistant Teachers.

¶ 22, 27, 46

iii.3. Whether the "doctrine of proportionality" and the principle of segregating "tainted" from "untainted" candidates were applicable to the present case.

¶ 20, 52

03Law Applied

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the requirement of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and the right to livelihood.

¶ 25, 52

Regulation 15 and 53 of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Regulations, 2009, regarding the limits of administrative authority and the procedure for termination.

¶ 18, 19, 51

Principles from State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha (2025) and Sachin Kumar v. DSO (2021), which mandate that where malpractices are not systemic, authorities must segregate "tainted" candidates from "untainted" ones rather than cancelling an entire selection.

¶ 39, 41, 49

Principle of audi alteram partem, requiring a prior hearing before any order producing civil consequences is passed.

¶ 50

Provisions in the judgment · 4

UGC Regulations on Curbing The Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009 Section 15Section 53Chapter VI

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 1 Rule 8

04Reasoning

The court found that the recruitment of Assistant Teachers was a distinct process from that of Principals, with separate advertisements and selection recordings.

¶ 47, 55

While records of Principal selections showed interpolations, the State failed to produce any evidence or records demonstrating irregularities in the Assistant Teacher selections, claiming the records were "missing".

¶ 45-46

The court reasoned that the Director of Education usurped the powers of the Regional Joint Director (the actual disciplinary authority under Regulation 53) and bypassed the mandatory inquiry procedures.

¶ 19, 51

By failing to distinguish between candidates against whom specific findings existed and those who were "untainted," the State violated the principle of proportionality.

¶ 52

The court determined that a "blanket cancellation" without a finding of systemic fraud was irrational and deprived the petitioners of their rights without due process.

¶ 48, 54