Allahabad High Court Halts Counselor Appointments in UP Family Courts
_2131654555.jpg)
In a significant judicial development addressing administrative recruitment practices, the Allahabad High Court has placed a strict stay on the appointment of new counselors across family courts in Uttar Pradesh. The bench intervened in response to a fresh recruitment advertisement issued on September 14, demanding accountability from the state administration regarding the absence of formal statutory service rules. The ruling emphasizes that temporary ad hoc appointments cannot be systematically replaced by another set of ad hoc appointments without adhering to proper legal frameworks.
Division Bench Stays September 14 Recruitment Advertisement
The legal challenge was taken up by a high-level judicial bench scrutinizing recruitment protocols within the state's judicial machinery:
Bench Proceedings: A division bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prasad issued the stay order while presiding over a writ petition filed by Virendra Singh and three co-petitioners, represented by advocate Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi.
Challenging New Ad Hoc Openings: The petition directly challenged the recent advertisement issued by administrative authorities calling for fresh counselor selections in family courts across multiple districts.
Querying State Rules: The court formally questioned the Uttar Pradesh government on whether mandatory service and appointment rules had been formulated as previously instructed by the court in its March 19, 2026 directive, ruling that in the absence of codified regulations, recruitment under the current advertisement cannot proceed.
Petitioners' Arguments: Protecting Existing Tenure and Challenging Ad Hoc Cycles
The petitioners highlighted systemic flaws in how family court counseling staff have been managed over the years:
Initial Ad Hoc Service: The petitioners were initially appointed as ad hoc counselors in the family courts of Allahabad and Kanpur back in 2020, undergoing periodic professional training programs and earning a three-year tenure extension upon completing their initial term.
Abrupt Replacement Orders: Instead of renewing or formalizing their tenures, the Registrar General directed district authorities on September 14 to initiate fresh ad hoc appointments.
Legal Principle Violated: Representing counsel argued strongly that the administration cannot legally replace one set of ad hoc employees with another temporary batch.
Mandate for Formal Regulations and Interim Relief for Existing Staff
To prevent administrative paralysis in family court reconciliation work while the legal challenge remains active, the court provided specific interim protections:
Continuation of Existing Counselors: To ensure that ongoing family dispute counseling and court proceedings are not disrupted during the pendency of the petition, the court permitted the current petitioners to continue carrying out their duties.
Disclosure of Staffing Metrics: The bench further directed the state government to officially disclose data regarding the proportional increase in counselor requirements across family courts, reinforcing the necessity for transparent, permanent service rules under the Family Court Act.
_1898026300_351x234.jpg)
_12888043_351x234.jpg)
_1099496847_351x234.jpg)
_2131654555_351x234.jpg)