Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30415 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36760 of 2016 Petitioner :- Shahid Hussain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyan Chandra Yadav,Hridai Narain Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Aakash Rai,C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Chand,Shiv Nath Singh(Senior Adv.) Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Gyan Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.K.Chand, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2016 that his appointment which took place about 35 years ago, was found to be illegal on ground that he was not eligible for the post of Lecturer (Hindi), since he has not passed B.A. along with Sanskrit. 3. It is not under much dispute that the petitioner has passed B.A. in the year 1975 with Hindi, Geography and Political Science and he has passed M.A. in the year 1977 with subject Hindi and accordingly Committee of Management has passed a resolution which are impugned in the present writ petition by which services of petitioner was proposed to be terminated. 4. This writ petition was filed when the petitioner was aged about 54 years and during pendency of this writ petition he died in the year 2017 and his legal heirs were substituted vide order dated 12.1.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner may not be completely qualified for the post of Lecturer (Hindi), however, since he has worked for substantial period i.e. for three and a half decade without any complaint and impugned orders were passed when he was discharging his duties as Ad-hoc Principal, therefore, his long services could have been protected and he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2024 SCC OnLine, SC 10. 6. Sri K.K.Chand, learned counsel appearing on behalf respondents submitted that facts reveal that original petitioner was not qualified for the post of Lecturer (Hindi), however, it has not been disputed that he has worked for three and a half decades. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, not only in the interest of justice, but taking note of Ram Prakash (supra) and vehement arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties, Court is of the opinion that petitioners long services could have been protected specifically when he has died before attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, the impugned orders are modified to the extent that petitioner will be considered in service till he died and its legal consequence shall follow including the family pension, if any, and for that legal heirs of petitioner may approach the concerned authority alongwith copy of orders passed by this Court. 8. With the aforesaid observations/direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad