Termination After Seven Years on Grounds of Over-Age Appointment Held Unjust by High Court

In a significant ruling providing relief to a government school teacher, the High Court has held that removing an employee more than seven years after appointment on the ground of over-age eligibility is unjust when the error in age calculation was attributable to the department itself.

 

The matter arose from the termination of Anita Rani, a teacher from Moradabad, whose appointment had been declared void on the allegation that she was above the prescribed age limit at the time of recruitment. The Court observed that if the department had itself appointed a candidate despite age-related discrepancies, it could not, after a prolonged period of service, penalize the employee for its own administrative lapse.

 

The Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla delivered the decision while allowing a special appeal and setting aside an earlier order of a single judge bench that had upheld the department’s decision to treat the appointment as null and void. The Division Bench directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service.

 

The Court clarified that the mistake in calculating the petitioner’s age was committed by departmental authorities and not by the candidate. It further noted that there was no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of facts on the part of the petitioner. In the absence of any dishonest intent or suppression of material information, the drastic step of termination after several years of service was found to be unwarranted.

 

According to the records presented before the Court, Anita Rani had participated in the Special Basic Training Certificate (BTC) selection process in 2008. She completed her training in June 2012 and cleared the UPTET examination in May 2014. Subsequently, she applied under the recruitment advertisement issued in December 2014 for the appointment of 15,000 assistant teachers. She was appointed on July 2, 2016.

 

However, in December 2017, she was served a notice stating that her appointment was being treated as void on the ground that she was above 50 years of age at the time of appointment. Challenging this decision, she approached the High Court.

 

The Division Bench observed that the petitioner had rendered service for over seven years and that the department had ample opportunity at the time of scrutiny and selection to verify eligibility criteria, including age. The Court held that the authorities could not be permitted to revisit and invalidate an appointment after such a long duration solely due to their own oversight.

 

While directing reinstatement, the Court specified that the petitioner would not be entitled to salary for the period during which she remained out of service. Nonetheless, the decision reinforces the principle that administrative errors committed by recruiting authorities cannot be used as grounds to deprive an employee of service benefits after an extended period, particularly in the absence of any wrongdoing by the appointee.