Allahabad HC rejects teachers' salary claim over suspicious appointment documents

Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) [India], May 29 The Allahabad High Court on Friday dismissed petitions filed by four teachers of a junior high school in Maharajganj district, observing that their appointments were secured through suspicious and forged documents and therefore they were not entitled to receive salary from the state exchequer.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that public appointments secured through forged documents are void ab initio. Appointees cannot claim salaries or demand formal disciplinary inquiries. Fraud vitiates all solemn acts, stripping the beneficiary of any right to service or consequential benefits
According to the case, several assistant teachers were appointed in 1996 at Janata Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Satgur Mujuri, Maharajganj. The teachers continued to receive regular salaries till August 2000, but their payments were stopped following complaints regarding the validity of their appointments. Petitioners included Brahmadev Yadav, Aniruddh Yadav, Amar Prakash Chandra and others.
A single bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan noted that the 1988 post-creation order appeared to be forged as the letter was addressed to a postmaster. The court also found the 1980 documents suspicious because two separate orders were shown to have been issued on the same date and number.
The court observed that the appointment approval letter dated June 27, 1996, was not entered in the dispatch register, while the names of teachers mentioned in the 1991-92 management register differed from those recorded in the 1996 salary bills. It further held that the appointments were made 16 years after the creation of the posts, in violation of Section 9(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Junior High Schools Act, 1978, under which approval is deemed withdrawn if appointments are not made within three months.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the absence of an entry in the dispatch register could not be a sufficient ground to cancel appointments and that nearly 30 years of service should not be ignored. Several Supreme Court judgments were also cited in support of their plea.
Rejecting the arguments, the court held that equity cannot override the law and that an illegal appointment does not become valid merely because a long period of time has passed.
However, the court clarified that the petitioners may approach the competent authority for payment of salary for the period they had actually worked after August 2000.
The court also noted that two petitioners, Brahmadev Yadav and Aniruddh Yadav, had retired in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Their petitions seeking retirement benefits were also dismissed along with the main pleas.