Minor At Appointment But No Fraud Involved: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside 2003 Order Cancelling Regularization Of Forester Engaged In 1991

Applying the principles of equity, a bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar restored his appointment noting that it was not a case of concealment, fraud, misrepresentation or deficiency in the services of the writ petitioner.

Briefly put, the petitioner was appointed as a Forester (Van Daroga), a Group 'C' post, in 1991 in the Forest Department at Dehradun, then part of undivided Uttar Pradesh.

He participated in the regularization process, submitted his certificates and cleared the physical walking test and on 26 March 2002, an order regularizing his services was issued. He joined as a regular employee on 1 April 2002.

However, on 7 May 2003, the Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Division, cancelled his regularization on the ground that on the date of his engagement he was only 16 years, 8 months, and 28 days old.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court. On 14 July 2003, HC granted him an interim protection and he continued in service and received salary regularly.

During the final hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that it not the case of the concealment, fraud or misrepresentation and that there is no deficiency or anything adverse against the petitioner.

It was further submitted that the petitioner's regularization was done with open eyes and that even if he was a minor at the time of engagement, such irregularity did not vitiate his service.

His counsel also urged that at best, it was an irregularity and not an illegality.

On the other hand, the state contended that eligibility and suitability on the cut-off date were mandatory and since the petitioner was under 18 years, he could not have been regularized in law.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench extensively referred to Allahabad HC's order in case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Satya Narain (Driver) wherein it was observed that if the concerned petitioner was admitted into service below age, both parties were equally guilty and there being no misrepresentation of the petitioner on record, denying continuance of service would be illegal.

The Court also referred to recent order of the HC in Mohd. Ashique v. State of U.P. 2025, wherein it was observed that the concept of regularization presupposes some initial irregularities in appointments and by virtue of regularization, the infirmities which do not go to the root of the appointment are cured.

The Court further recorded a crucial admission from the State it was not a case of concealment, fraud or misrepresentation, nor was there any other deficiency in the petitioner's record.

"Bearing in mind that the writ petitioner is working since 1991, his services stood regularized on 26.03.2002 and by virtue of the cancellation of the regularization order dated 07.05.2003, he was accorded interim protection by this Court on 14.07.2003 and he continues to work till date and there is nothing on record to show that there is anything adverse", the Court observed.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order dated 7 May 2003 issued by the Conservator of Forests, Varanasi, cancelling the regularization.

The regularization order dated 26 March 2002 was restored and the petitioner was held entitled to all consequential benefits as admissible under law.