Long, faultless service under a State-approved selection warrants protection despite an unrecognized qualification.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a privately managed Junior High School in 1989.

Following permission to advertise vacancies, an advertised selection in which a District Basic Education Officer’s nominee participated, and approval of the selection in 1996, she served at the institution.

She held a Shiksha Alankar qualification awarded by Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur.

When the institution entered the grant-in-aid scheme from 1 December 2006, the District Basic Education Officer refused to include her salary in the State grant, finding that her qualification was not recognised under the applicable rules.

During the proceedings, the Court directed payment of current salary from 1 January 2009, subject to her continued service and the subsistence of the employer-employee relationship; she continued to serve and receive salary under the interim orders.

Whether the petitioner’s Shiksha Alankar qualification satisfied the prescribed qualification for appointment as an Assistant Teacher under Rule 4 of the 1978 Rules.

If the qualification did not satisfy Rule 4, whether the petitioner’s service and salary should nevertheless be protected because her selection had been approved and she had continued in service without fraud or concealment.

Rules 4 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 require an Assistant Teacher to possess the prescribed recognised training qualification; Rules 7–10 govern selection and approval, with Rule 10 requiring the District Basic Education Officer to examine the selection and the candidate’s eligibility.

Sections 2(e) and 10(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 apply the statutory salary-payment scheme to an institution receiving maintenance grant.

Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, (2008) 7 SCC 153, establishes that an essential qualification is fundamental to a statutory appointment; Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2024:AHC:124422-DB, applied that principle to the same Shiksha Alankar qualification.

Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 7, (2024) 11 SCC 770, and Devendra Kumar Agrawal v. State of U.P., Special Appeal No. 212 of 2025, 2026:AHC:146878-DB, support protection of an employee where the authority participated in or approved the selection, the employee served without fraud, and the alleged defect was not attributable to the employee.

The Court also relied on Dr Asha Saxena v. S.K. Chaudhari, 1990 SCC OnLine All 602, concerning the need not to unsettle an appointment after inordinate delay where the employee is not at fault.

The petitioner did not establish that Shiksha Alankar was recognised by the State Government or the Board, so it did not satisfy Rule 4 and could not be treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification.

However, the petitioner’s qualification was disclosed during the selection process; the authority’s nominee participated, and the District Basic Education Officer approved the selection.

The approval remained in force, and the record disclosed no fraud, concealment, or fabrication by the petitioner.

In light of the authority’s role and the petitioner’s continued service, the Court protected her service and salary from 1 January 2009, when she resumed receiving salary under interim orders.

It declined to direct payment from the State grant for the earlier period, 1 December 2006 to 31 December 2008.

It allowed the writ petition, directed that the challenged order not disturb her service or permit recovery of salary paid for work performed on or after that date, and awarded consequential benefits, including unpaid salary and admissible retiral dues.

No order as to costs was made.