Subsequent clearance of BTC back-paper cannot retrospectively cure ineligibility on the application cutoff date.

The petitioners applied for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools pursuant to the 69,000-teacher recruitment process initiated under the Government Order dated 1 December 2018. The last date for submitting applications was 22 December 2018, and possession of the requisite two-year BTC qualification was prescribed as an eligibility condition.

Although the petitioners had initially failed in the fourth-semester BTC examination, they correctly disclosed their marks, were permitted to appear in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019, and were subsequently declared successful.

They later cleared the BTC back-paper examination, and their BTC certificates were issued on 7 August 2019.

The petitioners were selected and appointed as Assistant Teachers in District Ballia pursuant to Government Orders dated 4 December 2020 and 5 March 2021, and they joined service and received salary.

In 2025, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari issued show-cause notices alleging that the petitioners did not possess the BTC qualification by the cut-off date of 22 December 2018. Their services were thereafter terminated.

Their challenge before the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, was rejected by order dated 29 May 2026.

Whether the petitioners were eligible to participate in the recruitment process when they had not successfully completed the BTC qualification by the last date for submission of applications, namely 22 December 2018, but cleared the back-paper examination and obtained BTC certificates thereafter?

Whether the subsequent acceptance of the petitioners’ applications, declaration of their examination results, appointment, and continuance in service created an enforceable right to remain in service despite the absence of the requisite qualification on the determinative date?

Whether the Government Orders dated 4 December 2020 and 5 March 2021 concerning scrutiny, re-evaluation and back-paper results retrospectively validated the petitioners’ eligibility?

Whether termination of the petitioners’ services without disciplinary proceedings or a departmental inquiry violated principles of natural justice?

Whether permitting similarly situated candidates to continue in service entitled the petitioners to relief under Article 14 of the Constitution?

Eligibility for public employment must ordinarily be determined with reference to the last date prescribed in the recruitment advertisement; a qualification acquired after that date does not retrospectively cure the absence of eligibility unless the governing rules or instructions expressly provide otherwise.

Acceptance of an application, issuance of an admit card, declaration of result, or even appointment cannot create an estoppel against enforcement of statutory or advertised eligibility conditions.

The Government Orders concerning scrutiny, re-evaluation and back-paper results were construed as protecting candidates from prejudice caused by later acts of the examination authority, but not as extending the last date for acquiring the essential qualification.

The Court relied on Jyoti Yadav v. State of U.P., W.P. (Civil) No. 322 of 2021, decided on 8 April 2021, as upholding the relevant Government Order, while applying Preeti Jatave v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 849 of 2021, Anjali Singh v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 9826 of 2021, Prateeksha Kumari v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 19023 of 2021, and Vinti Pandey v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 1445 of 2021, for the principle that subsequent success in a back-paper examination does not retrospectively establish eligibility.

Disciplinary proceedings are unnecessary where termination is based on foundational ineligibility rather than misconduct.

Article 14 does not require repetition of an illegality, and “negative equality” cannot be claimed on the basis of allegedly wrongful continuance of other candidates.

The Court found that the petitioners had admittedly not passed the requisite BTC examination by 22 December 2018, the prescribed cut-off date. Their qualification arose only after the subsequent declaration of their back-paper results and issuance of certificates on 7 August 2019.

Consequently, their later success could not retrospectively satisfy the eligibility condition.

The Court held that the Government Orders relied upon by the petitioners merely ensured that candidates were not prejudiced by later scrutiny, re-evaluation or back-paper results; they did not extend the application deadline or create a relation-back effect for an essential qualification.

The respondents’ earlier administrative error in accepting the applications and appointing the petitioners could not confer a legal right to continue in service.

Since the termination was founded on lack of eligibility and not on misconduct, a disciplinary inquiry was not required.

The plea of discrimination also failed because Article 14 does not permit a claim based on alleged illegal benefit granted to others.

Although the Court acknowledged that the petitioners had served for a considerable period and received salary, equitable considerations could not override the eligibility requirements applicable to public recruitment.

The subsequent back-paper success, appointment, and period of service did not cure the foundational ineligibility.

The impugned order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, referred to in the operative portion as dated 30 April 2025, and the Secretary’s order dated 29 May 2026 were upheld.

No order was made as to costs.