The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has held that a teacher appointed without a sanctioned post and without the prescribed qualification cannot claim regularisation or salary from the State Government. However, the Court clarified that the teacher can claim salary from the Committee of Management that appointed him.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order on August 6, 2026, while deciding Writ-A No. 14526 of 2021 along with Writ-A No. 7109 of 2026. The Court found that the appointment was made without approval of the post and that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification prescribed under the applicable rules.
The Court accordingly declined to interfere with the rejection of regularisation and the claim against the State, while specifically holding that the petitioner would be entitled to claim salary from the Committee of Management.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management on November 23, 1999. At the time, he possessed a B.Sc. in Mathematics along with a qualification described as “Shiksha Alankar”.
According to the record, the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court over non-payment of salary. An interim order was passed in 2000, followed by contempt proceedings. A special appeal filed by the State was later dismissed in 2009.
A sanctioned Assistant Teacher post subsequently became vacant in 2010. The authorities ordered payment of salary to the petitioner from July 2010 until a regularly appointed teacher was available. The petitioner stated that he received salary until August 14, 2013, after which it was stopped.
Court’s Observation
The petitioner argued that “Shiksha Alankar” had been treated as equivalent to B.Ed. in government communications and that his long service should support his claim for regularisation.
The State opposed the plea, arguing that there was no sanctioned post and that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed training qualification.
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. It noted that creation of a teaching post requires prior approval from the competent authority.
Justice Bhatia found that the post on which the petitioner was appointed had not received the required approval. The Court also held that the qualification relied upon by the petitioner did not establish the equivalence to B.Ed. required under Appendix-A.
On the argument of long service, the Court observed that mere experience could not create a legal entitlement where the statutory requirements for appointment had not been fulfilled.
Decision
The High Court dismissed Writ-A No. 14526 of 2021 and Writ-A No. 7109 of 2026. While rejecting the claims for regularisation and salary from the State, the Court held that the petitioner would be entitled to claim salary from the Committee of Management.
Case Details
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow & Others
Case Numbers: Writ-A No. 14526 of 2021 and Writ-A No. 7109 of 2026
Judge: Justice Pankaj Bhatia
Decision Date: August 6, 2026
