Post-upgradation appointments under Junior High School Rules are void as Secondary Education Acts mandatorily occupy the field.

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in 2015 at Anglo Junior High School Persia, Gorakhpur

The institution was initially recognized under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, with recruitments governed by the U.P. Recognized Basic Education (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 ("Rules, 1978")

However, the school was upgraded to High School level in 2006 under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act

Following retirements of staff between 2008 and 2012, the management sought to fill vacancies in 2015 by following the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1978

Upon a complaint regarding the selection process, the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Mandal, directed an inquiry, leading to the termination/cancellation of the petitioners' appointments via orders dated 02.12.2015 and 10.12.2015

The petitioners challenged these orders, alleging a lack of jurisdiction by the Commissioner and violation of the principles of natural justice

Whether the recruitment of teachers in an institution upgraded to High School level continues to be governed by the Rules, 1978, or by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982

Whether the termination of appointments made under an inapplicable statutory framework is sustainable despite a lack of prior notice or hearing

Whether the Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry and subsequent termination of the petitioners' services

The Court primarily applied the principle that the applicability of recruitment rules is determined by the status of the institution on the date of appointment

It relied on the Division Bench judgment in Manju Awasthi v. State of U.P. (2013), which held that upon upgradation to a High School, the 1978 Rules are eclipsed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982

Furthermore, it applied the doctrine from State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006), asserting that appointments made in contravention of statutory provisions are illegal and confer no enforceable rights

Regarding natural justice, the Court applied the "useless formality" theory, noting that principles of natural justice are not a straitjacket formula where admitted facts lead to only one inevitable conclusion

The Court reasoned that since the institution was upgraded to a High School in 2006, any appointments made in 2015 had to strictly adhere to the statutory framework governing secondary education (the 1921 and 1982 Acts) rather than the 1978 Rules meant for Junior High Schools

The Court dismissed the petitioners' argument that following the 1978 procedure validated their appointments, stating that compliance with an inapplicable law does not cure an inherent lack of jurisdiction

On the issue of natural justice, the Court found that because the foundational facts (upgradation and subsequent misapplication of rules) were undisputed, providing a hearing would have served no purpose as the appointments were ex facie illegal

Regarding the Commissioner’s jurisdiction, the Court held that the action was a valid exercise of supervisory authority to rectify a patent illegality, and the brevity of the termination order did not render it invalid as the underlying statutory non-compliance was apparent from the record

The Court answered the issues by affirming that the 1921 and 1982 Acts occupied the field at the time of recruitment, and any deviation therefrom vitiated the foundation of the appointments

Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the impugned termination orders and dismissed the writ petition, denying any relief to the petitioners