Mandatory qualification at recruitment controls service validity; later degree and long service cannot cure a void appointment.

A statutory appointment made without the prescribed recognised educational qualification at the date of recruitment was void under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules. A later-acquired degree could not cure the original defect, and the appointment could not be regularised under Sections 33-A or 33-B because basic eligibility was absent when the appointment was made. The Removal of Difficulties Orders also gave no protection where the termination occurred before the relevant cut-off date, and long service could not override the mandatory qualification requirement. Once the appointment was void, the timing or motive of disciplinary action did not create any enforceable right to continue in service.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's appointment as Assistant Teacher was void for want of the requisite recognised educational qualification and whether a later-acquired degree could validate the appointment or secure regularisation. (ii) Whether the Removal of Difficulties Orders or the claim of long service could protect the appellant's continuance in service.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's appointment as Assistant Teacher was void for want of the requisite recognised educational qualification and whether a later-acquired degree could validate the appointment or secure regularisation.

Analysis: The appointment to the post was governed by the statutory recruitment framework under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder, which required the prescribed qualification from a recognised university at the time of recruitment. The appellant did not possess a B.Ed. degree from a recognised university on the date of appointment. The Court treated this as a failure to satisfy an essential condition precedent, making the appointment contrary to the statute and therefore void. A subsequent degree could not cure the original defect, because an appointment made in breach of mandatory qualifications cannot be regularised by later compliance, and no legal right to continue arises from such an appointment. The plea for regularisation under Sections 33-A and 33-B was also unavailable because the basic qualification was lacking at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The appointment was illegal and void, and the later-acquired degree did not validate it or entitle the appellant to regularisation.

Issue (ii): Whether the Removal of Difficulties Orders or the claim of long service could protect the appellant's continuance in service.

Analysis: The Court held that the appellant's termination had taken place before the cut-off date relevant to the cited Removal of Difficulties regime, and therefore that benefit was not applicable. The fact that the appellant had continued in service for some years did not override the statutory requirement of basic eligibility. Since the foundational qualification itself was absent, the length of service could not create an enforceable right to remain in employment. The Court also held that the timing or motive behind the departmental proceedings was immaterial once the appointment itself was void.

Conclusion: The appellant could not derive any protection from the Removal of Difficulties Orders or from long service.

Final Conclusion: The statutory qualification requirement governed the appointment from the outset, and the appellant's inability to satisfy it on the date of recruitment was fatal to his challenge to termination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes an essential qualification for appointment, failure to possess that qualification on the date of recruitment renders the appointment void and incapable of validation by subsequent acquisition of the qualification or by regularisation.

---