The Allahabad High Court has said that public employment is a public trust, and appointments secured through “deceit, misrepresentation or abuse of judicial process” cannot be protected, and upheld the termination of a teacher whose appointment was found to be unlawful. The court ruled that once the appointment is held to have no legal foundation, the salary and other benefits received under interim court protection are recoverable.Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra were hearing a special appeal filed by one Subhash Chandra Tyagi, who had challenged the termination of his services as an assistant teacher at Shastri Smarak Inter College, Ahmad Shahpur, Padra, in Uttar Pradesh‘s Baghpat district. The appeal also questioned a single judge’s order directing him to deposit Rs 2.16 lakh, failing which the amount was to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.“The constitutional courts cannot permit the sanctity of public employment to be eroded by fraudulent or unlawful appointments secured through deceit, misrepresentation or abuse of judicial process. Public office is a public trust and every appointment made in contravention of law constitutes a direct assault on the constitutional mandate of equality, fairness and transparency embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,” the bench said on August 7.The dispute arose from Tyagi’s appointment in December 1992 against an alleged short-term vacancy created after another teacher, Ved Prakash Harit, purportedly went on leave without pay. Though the appointment was approved by the district inspector of schools in 1995 under an interim high court order, its legality came under scrutiny when the original writ petition was finally heard nearly two decades later. The Allahabad High Court held that interim court protection cannot legitimise an appointment found to be unlawful. (Image enhanced using AI)Appointment questionedAccording to the judgment, Tyagi moved the high court in 1993 after his salary was withheld. The court allowed him to continue in service pending the district inspector of schools’ decision, following which his appointment was approved on May 23, 1995, and he continued drawing salary from the state exchequer.When the writ petition was finally heard in 2010-11, the state informed the court that the institution could not produce records relating to Ved Prakash Harit’s alleged leave or any document showing he had ever drawn salary from the state exchequer.The salary registers also did not contain his name. Despite being given an opportunity to establish the existence of the vacancy and the legality of his appointment, Tyagi chose not to respond to the supplementary counter affidavit, and his counsel stated that the writ petition had become irrelevant.Story continues below this adThe petition was dismissed, the interim order stood discharged, and the district inspector of schools and the authorised controller terminated his services through orders dated January 19 and 20, 2011. His subsequent challenge was also dismissed by a single judge, who imposed costs of Rs 2.16 lakh.No material supporting alleged vacancyExamining the record, the division bench found no evidence that Ved Prakash Harit had ever drawn salary from the state exchequer or had actually proceeded on leave. It noted that no institutional records supported the alleged leave and Harit’s name did not appear in the relevant pay registers.The bench also observed that the then district inspector of schools had approved the appointment without verifying whether Harit even existed or was “simply an imaginary figure” created to generate a short-term vacancy for the appellant.The court further noted the state’s submission that the then district inspector of schools, S S Rawat, had been punished in departmental proceedings after charges of facilitating 96 fraudulent appointments and salary payments in various institutions were proved, leading to forfeiture of his gratuity and permanent deduction of 50 per cent of his pension.Story continues below this adInterim orders create no vested rights: HCRejecting the appeal, the bench reiterated that an interim order remains subject to the outcome of judicial proceedings and does not create an independent or indefeasible right. “It is a well-settled principle that an interim order is always subject to the final outcome of the proceedings and does not create an independent or indefeasible right. Consequently, once the writ petition is dismissed and the very foundation of the appointment or continuance disappears, every consequential benefit flowing therefrom must also fall,” the court said, while explaining the doctrine of restitution.The bench relied on Supreme Court rulings to hold that no litigant can retain benefits secured through an interim order or claim equity from an appointment ultimately found to be unlawful.Rejecting Tyagi’s reliance on Section 33-F of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, it dismissed the appeal, vacated the interim stay on recovery and held that the salary received was “not the fruits of a legitimate right but benefits derived from an arrangement that ultimately stands denuded of all legal foundation upon the dismissal of the writ petition.”