CASE NAME: Devendra Kumar Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 5 Others
CASE NUMBER: Special Appeal No. 212 of 2025
COURT: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
DATE: 17 July, 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. and Hon’ble Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.
FACTS
The appellant was appointed as an ad-hoc LT grade teacher in 1992 on the strength of a Bachelor of Arts degree along with an additional qualification called Shiksha Alankar, believed at the time to be equivalent to a B.Ed. degree. After 21 years of continuous service, he was regularized in 2013 under Section 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, and four years later, in 2017, he was promoted to Lecturer grade. Then, in 2021 nearly 29 years into his service proceedings were initiated against him under Section 16-E(10) of the Intermediate Education Act, based on a complaint that he never held the essential B.Ed. qualification at the time of his original appointment. The learned Single Judge, relying on an earlier ruling in Dinesh Kumar Singh, held that Shiksha Alankar was indeed not equivalent to B.Ed., and while he declined to interfere with the impugned action, he clarified that the appellant would remain free to pursue remedies if any recovery of salary was later attempted. The appellant then filed this intra-court appeal.
ISSUES
- Whether Shiksha Alankar can be treated as equivalent to a B.Ed. degree for appointment as Assistant Teacher.
- Whether the power under Section 16-E(10) of the Act can be exercised to cancel an appointment decades after it was made, particularly where the employee was subsequently regularized and promoted without objection.
- Whether the earlier Single Judge ruling in Dinesh Kumar Singh, which did not address the delay aspect, could bind the present Bench in the face of a contrary full-bench decision.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 16-E(10) of the Intermediate Education Act
- Section 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982
- Case Laws: Dr. Asha Saxena v. Smt. S.K. Chaudhari, 1990 SCC OnLine All 602 (Full Bench); Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 557; Surya Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P., Special Appeal No. 244 of 2016; Vinod Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P., 2011 SCC OnLine All 1108; Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P., (2024) 11 SCC 770; Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P., 2025 INSC 425; Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, (2008) 7 SCC 153.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT: It was submitted that even if the qualification issue could not be seriously contested any longer, given the coordinate bench ruling in Surya Prakash Pandey, it did not follow that the appellant should be stripped of nearly three decades of service and its accompanying benefits. There was no allegation of fraud, concealment, or collusion, and the State itself had knowingly regularized his service and promoted him to Lecturer grade. Reliance was placed on the full-bench decision in Dr. Asha Saxena, where a 17-year delay was held sufficient to bar cancellation of appointment, and on Radhey Shyam Yadav, where the Supreme Court disapproved of a State abruptly stopping salary after years of unquestioned service.
RESPONDENTS: The State maintained that Shiksha Alankar was conclusively not equivalent to B.Ed., as settled in Vinod Kumar Upadhyay and affirmed in Surya Prakash Pandey, and that this position had already been applied in Dinesh Kumar Singh to dispense with a similarly placed teacher’s services after 30 years. It was argued that since the appellant never held the essential qualification, he had no right to continue in service regardless of how long he had served, relying further on Jomon K.K. and Pramod Kumar.
ANALYSIS
The Bench acknowledged that Dinesh Kumar Singh appeared to support the State’s position at first glance, but found it distinguishable that the decision did not concern an exercise of power under Section 16-E(10) specifically, and more importantly, did not engage with the delay question at all. The Court noted that the appellant’s qualifications had already been under the State’s scrutiny both at the time of his regularization in 2013 and again at his promotion in 2017, with no objection raised on either occasion making it doubtful that the same issue could be revived years later. Turning to Dr. Asha Saxena, the Court found this full-bench ruling, which held that Section 16-E(10) power could not be exercised after a 17-year delay, to be binding, since it decided the writ petition itself rather than merely answering a referred question. The Court held that Dinesh Kumar Singh, having overlooked this binding precedent, could not prevail. It also drew on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Radhey Shyam Yadav, which cautioned against terminating salary suddenly after years of unchallenged service. In effect, the Court said that institutions can make appointments but an individual employee’s life and livelihood cannot be simply rewound by decades absent fraud or deception on his part.
JUDGMENT
The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Single Judge’s order dated 28 February 2025, holding it contrary to the binding full-bench decision in Dr. Asha Saxena. The appellant was held entitled to all consequential benefits, to be computed and paid within three months. No costs were awarded.
CONCLUSION
The judgment reinforces that the power to cancel an appointment under Section 16-E(10) of the Intermediate Education Act must be exercised within a reasonable time, and cannot be invoked decades later where the employee has since been regularized and promoted without objection, and where there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on his part. Long, unchallenged service by an employee, particularly where the State itself has repeatedly affirmed that engagement through subsequent official action, weighs heavily against permitting belated cancellation.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: MAHFUZA FATHIMA
Read the Judgement copy below:
Devendra Kumar Agrawal v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
