Krishna Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Ors, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

challenged, but still considering that petitioner has worked for about 38 years and has just retired on 31.3.2025 and is now facing adverse proceedings that his initial appointment was not proper as he was not qualified for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher probably on ground that he did not possess requisite qualification, therefore ignoring such defects the Court proceeds to consider the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that by the impugned order dated 17.4.2025, Accounts and Finance Officer, Basic Shiksha, Shamli has sought certain documents from Manager/Committee of Management of concerned school in regard to qualification of the petitioner. However, despite there was a reference of an order dated 26.5.2022 in said order, same has not been challenged, despite being adverse to the petitioner. By said order, the concerned respondent while considering case of one Sri Vinod Kumar Singh whereby his application for voluntary retirement was rejected, initial qualification of the petitioner was also considered and held him to be unqualified for initial appointment made in the year 1988.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the said order is not under challenge in this writ petition, however he refers paragraphs no.29 and 30 of writ petition which is reproduced hereinafter that it is effectively challenged: " 29. That so far second allegation is concerned the appointment of the petitioner has already been declared as a valid appointment and vide order dated 22.06.1996 of the then District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffar and aforesaid order was attained the finality, hence the second order dated 26.05.2022 is not sustainable in the eye of law because of once a authority has passed the order in favour of the petitioner the same authority cannot pass the subsequent order by ignoring the earlier order passed by the same authority.

30. That vide order dated 26.05.2022 while rejecting the claim of one Vinod Kumar Singh for voluntary retirement and also held that the appointment of the petitioner is irregular, the District Basic Education Officer, Shamli has totally ignored earlier order dated 22.06.1996 passed by then District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffar Nagar and further stated that before passing he aforesaid order no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner and copy of the order not forwarded to the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 26.05.2022 has no validity in the eye of law."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid order was an ex-parte order and principles of natural justice were not followed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Krishna Pal Singh has challenged the petitioner's appointment by filing a Writ Petition No.3036 of 2025, Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.3.2025. Said order is reproduced hereinafter: "1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.

2. Petitioner before this Court has not disclosed his antecedents, except an averment in para 24 of writ petition that due to action of Respondent-8 he was harassed during his service period and his post retiral benefits were cleared after three years of his retirement. He has also declared that harassment caused by Respondent-8 is a legal ground available with petitioner to challenge his appointment, who was appointed on 23.06.1988, i.e., after a period of more than 36 years.

3. Para 24 of the writ petition is reproduced hereinafter: "24. That on one hand the appointment of respondent no. 8 is dehor the provisions of law occupying the field. In spite of same, every now and then respondent no. 8 had been instrumental in disturbing the otherwise valid appointment of the petitioner as or his behest earlier in point of time petitioner was placed under suspension vide resolution dated 20.12.2018. Since at all given point of time, respondent no. 8 had been harassing the petitioner therefore, he was also not paid retiral dues which could only be paid in favour of petitioner after three years of struggle on account of hindrance having been made by respondent no. 8. In this background, petitioner would have all the right to assail the continuance of respondent no. 8 as Assistant Teacher. Copy of the resolution dated 20.12.2018 is being appended here with this and marked as Annexure No. 7 to this writ petition."

3. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner is confronted with locus of petitioner and he fairly admits that he has no locus to challenge the appointment of Respondent-8, however, there were earlier orders to initiate inquiry to verify whether Respondent-8 was qualified or not and till date no action has been taken, therefore, he has a right to pray that inquiry be concluded in accordance with law.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the above submission and submitted that prayer made in this writ petition, i.e., to nullify the appointment of Respondent-8 be rejected.

5. Petitioner is retired from service about 6-7 years ago and instead of enjoying a peaceful life he is after the Respondent-8 to disturb his peaceful life and has challenged his appointment after about 36 years ago.

6. Contents of para 24 of writ petition, on face of it, disclose that action of petitioner is mala fide and he wants to take a revenge since allegedly he has suffered by the action of Respondent-8. Even otherwise, to challenge the appointment of Respondent-8 after such a long period would also be against the interest of justice. If petitioner was so bona fide, he ought to have approach this Court at the earliest to pursue an inquiry initiated against Respondent-8, but he waited for a very long time. Therefore, this writ petition is also suffered with laches.

7. In view of above, I find no merit in writ petition. Dismissed accordingly."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter said writ petitioner filed Special Appeal No.210 of 2025, Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2025. Said order is reproduced hereinafter: "1. This intra court appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Single Judge refusing to entertain the petition on the ground of locus.

2. After some argument in the matter, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contends that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present appeal as also the writ petition as the appellant-petitioner intends to file a writ of quo warranto.

3. Prayer in that regard is objected by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the respondent has already superannuated on 31.3.2025. Retiral benefits has also been released to him in part. It is, therefore, submitted that at this late stage such liberty be not granted to the petitioner.

4. Admittedly the appellant has already retired. The person whose appointment he seeks to challenge has also superannuated. In such circumstances, at this late stage, we are not inclined to grant any liberty to the appellant in terms of the prayer made. It would be appropriate for both the parties to give a quietus to the dispute.

5. Special appeal is, consequently, dismissed."

8. Learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that petitioner was not granted any opportunity before passing any adverse order as well as he is not able to dispute the order passed in Krishna Pal Singh (supra) which was upheld by Division Bench of this Court.

9. I have considered the above submissions and though the petitioner has not challenged order dated 26.5.2022, still considering that there are pleadings in the writ petition as well as an attempt made by complainant earlier was rejected by this Court which was upheld by Division Bench, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that claim of the petitioner for pension will be considered in accordance with law, without getting affected by the order dated 26.5.2022. Since at this belated stage even if it is considered that initial appointment of the petitioner has some irregularity, but same cannot be a ground to unsuit him after such a long period of service of three decades and that now petitioner has retired. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

challenged, but still considering that petitioner has worked for about 38 years and has just retired on 31.3.2025 and is now facing adverse proceedings that his initial appointment was not proper as he was not qualified for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher probably on ground that he did not possess requisite qualification, therefore ignoring such defects the Court proceeds to consider the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that by the impugned order dated 17.4.2025, Accounts and Finance Officer, Basic Shiksha, Shamli has sought certain documents from Manager/Committee of Management of concerned school in regard to qualification of the petitioner. However, despite there was a reference of an order dated 26.5.2022 in said order, same has not been challenged, despite being adverse to the petitioner. By said order, the concerned respondent while considering case of one Sri Vinod Kumar Singh whereby his application for voluntary retirement was rejected, initial qualification of the petitioner was also considered and held him to be unqualified for initial appointment made in the year 1988.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the said order is not under challenge in this writ petition, however he refers paragraphs no.29 and 30 of writ petition which is reproduced hereinafter that it is effectively challenged: " 29. That so far second allegation is concerned the appointment of the petitioner has already been declared as a valid appointment and vide order dated 22.06.1996 of the then District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffar and aforesaid order was attained the finality, hence the second order dated 26.05.2022 is not sustainable in the eye of law because of once a authority has passed the order in favour of the petitioner the same authority cannot pass the subsequent order by ignoring the earlier order passed by the same authority.

30. That vide order dated 26.05.2022 while rejecting the claim of one Vinod Kumar Singh for voluntary retirement and also held that the appointment of the petitioner is irregular, the District Basic Education Officer, Shamli has totally ignored earlier order dated 22.06.1996 passed by then District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffar Nagar and further stated that before passing he aforesaid order no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner and copy of the order not forwarded to the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 26.05.2022 has no validity in the eye of law."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid order was an ex-parte order and principles of natural justice were not followed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Krishna Pal Singh has challenged the petitioner's appointment by filing a Writ Petition No.3036 of 2025, Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.3.2025. Said order is reproduced hereinafter: "1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.

2. Petitioner before this Court has not disclosed his antecedents, except an averment in para 24 of writ petition that due to action of Respondent-8 he was harassed during his service period and his post retiral benefits were cleared after three years of his retirement. He has also declared that harassment caused by Respondent-8 is a legal ground available with petitioner to challenge his appointment, who was appointed on 23.06.1988, i.e., after a period of more than 36 years.

3. Para 24 of the writ petition is reproduced hereinafter: "24. That on one hand the appointment of respondent no. 8 is dehor the provisions of law occupying the field. In spite of same, every now and then respondent no. 8 had been instrumental in disturbing the otherwise valid appointment of the petitioner as or his behest earlier in point of time petitioner was placed under suspension vide resolution dated 20.12.2018. Since at all given point of time, respondent no. 8 had been harassing the petitioner therefore, he was also not paid retiral dues which could only be paid in favour of petitioner after three years of struggle on account of hindrance having been made by respondent no. 8. In this background, petitioner would have all the right to assail the continuance of respondent no. 8 as Assistant Teacher. Copy of the resolution dated 20.12.2018 is being appended here with this and marked as Annexure No. 7 to this writ petition."

3. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner is confronted with locus of petitioner and he fairly admits that he has no locus to challenge the appointment of Respondent-8, however, there were earlier orders to initiate inquiry to verify whether Respondent-8 was qualified or not and till date no action has been taken, therefore, he has a right to pray that inquiry be concluded in accordance with law.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the above submission and submitted that prayer made in this writ petition, i.e., to nullify the appointment of Respondent-8 be rejected.

5. Petitioner is retired from service about 6-7 years ago and instead of enjoying a peaceful life he is after the Respondent-8 to disturb his peaceful life and has challenged his appointment after about 36 years ago.

6. Contents of para 24 of writ petition, on face of it, disclose that action of petitioner is mala fide and he wants to take a revenge since allegedly he has suffered by the action of Respondent-8. Even otherwise, to challenge the appointment of Respondent-8 after such a long period would also be against the interest of justice. If petitioner was so bona fide, he ought to have approach this Court at the earliest to pursue an inquiry initiated against Respondent-8, but he waited for a very long time. Therefore, this writ petition is also suffered with laches.

7. In view of above, I find no merit in writ petition. Dismissed accordingly."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter said writ petitioner filed Special Appeal No.210 of 2025, Krishna Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2025. Said order is reproduced hereinafter: "1. This intra court appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Single Judge refusing to entertain the petition on the ground of locus.

2. After some argument in the matter, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contends that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present appeal as also the writ petition as the appellant-petitioner intends to file a writ of quo warranto.

3. Prayer in that regard is objected by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the respondent has already superannuated on 31.3.2025. Retiral benefits has also been released to him in part. It is, therefore, submitted that at this late stage such liberty be not granted to the petitioner.

4. Admittedly the appellant has already retired. The person whose appointment he seeks to challenge has also superannuated. In such circumstances, at this late stage, we are not inclined to grant any liberty to the appellant in terms of the prayer made. It would be appropriate for both the parties to give a quietus to the dispute.

5. Special appeal is, consequently, dismissed."

8. Learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that petitioner was not granted any opportunity before passing any adverse order as well as he is not able to dispute the order passed in Krishna Pal Singh (supra) which was upheld by Division Bench of this Court.

9. I have considered the above submissions and though the petitioner has not challenged order dated 26.5.2022, still considering that there are pleadings in the writ petition as well as an attempt made by complainant earlier was rejected by this Court which was upheld by Division Bench, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that claim of the petitioner for pension will be considered in accordance with law, without getting affected by the order dated 26.5.2022. Since at this belated stage even if it is considered that initial appointment of the petitioner has some irregularity, but same cannot be a ground to unsuit him after such a long period of service of three decades and that now petitioner has retired. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad