Court Rules Appointment and Confirmation Outside Statutory Rules Illegal; Long Service and Interim Orders Do Not Confer Permanency or Protection Under Article 311
In a significant judgment delivered on September 7, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the special appeal filed by Rama Shankar Yadav and others challenging the annulment of their appointment and confirmation as Collection Amins in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The court held that the ad hoc appointments made on February 9, 1990, followed by a confirmation order dated March 13, 1991, were made in violation of the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974, and the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments Rules, 1979, and were therefore void ab initio.
The appellants, who initially served as Seasonal Collection Amins from 1976 onwards, were appointed on an ad hoc basis to the post of Collection Amin without following the mandatory recruitment procedure that required constitution of a Selection Committee and adherence to prescribed cut-off dates and continuous service requirements. The confirmation order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which purportedly regularized their status after about one year of ad hoc service, lacked any statutory authority or procedural legitimacy.
The Court emphasized that an appointment or confirmation made outside the statutory rules and constitutional scheme is null and void and cannot confer any legally enforceable right or permanent status on the employee. It rejected the appellants’ plea that their long service as Seasonal Collection Amins and continuation under interim orders during litigation created any right to regularization or permanence. The Court further held that inclusion of their names in a seniority list or the absence of fraud in securing appointment does not validate an otherwise void appointment.
The judgment also clarified that the protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which safeguards government servants from dismissal without due process, applies only to substantive or validly confirmed appointments. Since the appellants’ appointments were void from inception, they cannot claim such constitutional protection. The Court rejected the contention based on “negative equality” that parity should be granted merely because similarly situated employees had their termination quashed earlier, underscoring that courts cannot perpetuate illegality.
Further, the Court explained that even if the Sub-Divisional Magistrate lacked power to review the earlier confirmation order, the writ court would not interfere where setting aside the impugned order would revive an earlier illegal order. The confirmation order dated March 13, 1991, being contrary to law, was rightly set aside, and the consequential orders based thereon automatically fell.
The judgment draws upon authoritative Supreme Court rulings such as Uma Devi, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, and others, reiterating the principle that appointments contrary to statutory rules cannot be regularized or converted into permanent posts merely by passage of time or executive fiat. The Court also cautioned against courts issuing interim orders that create “litigious employment,” which do not confer substantive rights.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the special appeal, holding that the ad hoc appointment and subsequent confirmation of the appellants were illegal, void ab initio, and could not be sustained. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Bottom Line :
Service Law - Ad hoc appointment made dehors statutory rules and subsequent confirmation without authority of law is void ab initio - Long service as Seasonal Collection Amin, continuance under interim orders, inclusion in seniority list or parity with similarly situated employees does not confer right to regularization, permanence or protection under Article 311 - Writ court will not interfere if quashing impugned order would revive an earlier illegal confirmation order.
Statutory provision(s):
Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974; Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979; Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975; Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India
Rama Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P., (All)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984211
