Allahabad High Court
Rahul Pratap Singh And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And 12 Others on 8 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134507
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2512 of 2017
Petitioner :- Rahul Pratap Singh And 7 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed for following relief:
"(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the government order dated 5.12.2016 (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition ) as also the notification dated 19.12.2016 issued by the Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition).
(ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith issue appointment orders to the petitioners on the basis of their selection in pursuance to the selection proceedings initiated in October, 2014 within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."
3. In the month of October, 2014, the respondents have notified 6645 posts of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade for Government Higher Secondary Schools in different regions of the State and in the advertisement, a separate mention was made with regard to male and female branch and the reserved category post. As the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 had applied for appointment under the male category and the remaining petitioners have applied under the female category. The said selections were made based on the U.P. Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983, which envisages selection based upon the point marks awarded on the basis of academic qualifications. Accordingly, all the petitioners were called for counseling in different regions of the State by means of individual communications. Subsequently, they have participated in first /second round as all the petitioners were stood in the select list.
4. Based on the pendency of litigation before this Court, the State has issued amendment to U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service (4th Amendment) Rules vide notification dated 19.10.2016 and the said notification was issued w.e.f. 19.10.2016 and the Government has also issued order on 5.12.2016 by cancelling the selection proceedings, which was initiated for filling up of 6645 posts of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade by Regional Level. Based on the said Government order, the Direction has issued consequential notification on 19.12.2016 notifying fresh recruitment for filling up of 9342 posts ofAssistant Teacher in LT Grade including posts covered by the advertisement issued in October, 2014. Assailing the same, present writ petition has been filed.
5. While considering the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed two judgments of this Court. Initially, he has placed reliance on the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 399 of 2018 (Vipin Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), wherein the appeal was allowed and direction was issued to the appointing authority to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of assistant teacher. Relevant portion of the abovesaid order, are as under:
"The Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh arrived at the conclusion that the State Government in its order dated 5th December, 2016 has already cancelled the process of selection of the year 2014 and, therefore, no appointment can be accorded to the appellant-petitioner. The Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh also referred that as a consequence to amendment in the relevant rules, the process of selection too has been altered and, therefore, appointment cannot be accorded to the appellant-petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ that came to be dismissed. The writ petition aforesaid was dismissed in light of the judgment given in the case of Himanshu Shukla and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, Writ A- No.48664 of 2017.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that the case of Himanshu Shukla and another (supra) is having no application in the case in hand. It is stated that in the case of Himanshu Shukla and another (supra) the Court was examining entirely a different issue relating to applications of the amended provisions pertaining to the vacancies of the earlier years including the vacancies advertised under an advertisement dated 19th October, 2016. It is asserted that so far as the present appellant-petitioner is concerned, he faced the process of selection pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2014 and that came to be concluded by way of issuance of a select list, followed by the orders of appointments.
On going through the record, we are in agreement with counsel for the appellant that so far as the case of the present appellant-petitioner is concerned that relates to the process of selection initiated in the year 2014 and concluded by grant of appointments to several persons, including the persons who were at higher pedestal vis-a-vis the appellant-petitioner in the select list. The appellant-petitioner claimed appointment with an assertion that due to non-joining of the persons at higher merit the vacancy exists and that is required to be satisfied by extending appointment to him. In the case of Himanshu Shukla and another (supra) the issue was entirely different. In the case aforesaid, an advertisement was issued and the process of selection was initiated. However, before completion of that, the same was cancelled and a fresh advertisement was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates as per amended provisions of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983.
In light of whatever stated above, we are having no doubt that learned single Bench erred while dismissing the petition in light of the judgment given in the case of Himanshu Shukla and another (supra).
At this stage, we would have remanded the matter for its adjudication to learned single Bench. However, looking to the fact that the appellant-petitioner is in que for appointment from last several years and he has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance by two petitions earlier also, with the consent of the learned counsel for rival parties, we consider it appropriate to examine merits of the case advanced before us.
As already stated, the appellant-petitioner was placed in the select list drawn by the selecting agency pertaining to visually impaired candidates. The appellant-petitioner in the list aforesaid stood at Serial No.5. It is not in dispute that the persons at higher pedestal in merit than the appellant-petitioner did not chose to join service in the Department of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh. The vacancies for which the process of selection was conducted as such remained unfilled. The appellant-petitioner being placed immediately after the incumbents higher in merit, who did not joined service, should have been accorded appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. The respondents denied appointment to the appellant-petitioner on the count that the rules came to be amended in the year 2017 and as such there being a change in process of selection no appointment could have been given.
We failed to understand as to how the amendment introduced in the year 2017 has been made applicable to the concluded process of selection of the year 2014. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Captain K.S. Arora and another Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1984 (3) SCC 281 held that the rights already accrued cannot be disturbed by any subsequent amendment. The case of the petitioner, as a matter of fact stands on a better pedestal. In the case in hand, the rules were amended in the year 2017 and those are not having any retrospective application and as such the amended provisions are having no adverse effect on the claim of the appellant-petitioner who cam to be selected under a process of selection initiated in the year 2014 and came to be concluded. Appointments were already accorded to the selected incumbents subsequent thereto. As such, the reason given by the respondents for not extending appointment to the appellant is absolutely non-existent and flimsy. The appointments on the post of Assistant Teacher should have been given to the appellant-petitioner as the persons at higher rank to him in the select list did not chose to join the services within the time limit prescribed. The right accrued in favour of the appellant-petitioner being placed in the select list in no manner could have been subjected to any adverse injury on the count of the amendments introduced in the year 2017."
6. Further, a co-ordinate Bench has also considered the other writ petition being Writ A No. 22651 of 2017 (Pratibha Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). The said writ petition was filed assailing the Government order dated 5.12.2016 and the consequential orders of the Director of Education (Secondary) dated 20.12.2016. The said writ petition was allowed with the following directions:
"31. It is also worth to notice that one Reema Rai, who had also appeared in the second round of counselling under the handicapped quota on 23.11.2015 pursuant to the letter dated 18.11.2015 inviting her for counselling was denied selection on the ground that she did not have necessary qualification. When she approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.43893 of 2016 and on instruction being sought by this Court, respondents assured the Court to grant appointment letter to Reema Rai. The order of this Court dated 05.10.2016 is being extracted herein below:-
"On 15.9.2016, this Court had passed following order:
The petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Mistress (language Hindi) for which essential qualifications were Bachelor's Degree with Hindi (main subject) and Intermediate with Sanskrit from the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. or an equivalent examination with Sanskrit apart from diploma in L.T. or B.T. or B.Ed. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she did not have graduation degree with 'Hindi' as a main subject.
The petitioner has placed before the Court marks-sheet of her B.A. examination obtained from Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, which discloses that Hindi Literature was one of the subjects of the petitioner in her graduation course. It has been submitted that the requirement is not of a Honours Degree therefore the requirement of having Hindi as a main subject would mean that in graduation course, Hindi is one of the subjects and since the petitioner had Hindi Literature as one of the subjects in graduation she should be considered eligible.
Learned Standing Counsel, representing the respondents, has sought to justify rejection by claiming that the petitioner's subject in her graduation course was not 'Hindi' but 'Hindi literature'. He also sought to argue that in the final year examination the petitioner has appeared in only two papers, namely, Home Science and Sanskrit and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had 'Hindi' as the main subject.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that as to how the subjects are to be dealt with in a three years' B.A. course is for the University's curriculum to decide and since the petitioner has taken 'Hindi Literature' as one of the subjects for her B.A. course, the degree ought to qualify the petitioner as an eligible candidate.
The matter requires consideration.
Put up this matter, as fresh, on 4th October, 2016, by which date the learned Standing Counsel will obtain instruction on the following aspects : (a) whether in graduation course conducted by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur "Hindi Literate" and 'Hindi" are treated as separate subjects or is a common subject; and (b) whether the petitioner possesses B.A. pass degree from the said University disclosing that she has passed her graduation with 'Hindi Literature' as one of the subjects."
Pursuant to the above order, the learned Standing Counsel has obtained written instructions from Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur. In the last paragraph of the written instructions, it has been stated that the case of the petitioner was again examined on 29.6.2016 by the Regional Level Committee and the Regional Level Committee had found the petitioner to be eligible and thereafter the candidature of the petitioner has been recommended and her documents/ testimonial have been sent for verification and after verification, she shall be issued letter of appointment.
In view of aforesaid, the writ petition has become infructuous and is accordingly, disposed of as such."
32. As respondent has appointed Reema Rai, who had also appeared in the second round of counselling on the same date, i.e. 23.11.2015 on which petitioner was also invited for counselling under Scheduled Tribe category, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the respondents cannot take shelter of Government Order dated 05.12.2016 to deny the benefit of appointment to petitioner on the ground that after issuance of Government Order dated 05.12.2016, a new procedure has been introduced for making selection on the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade and the procedure prescribed under Rules, 1983 has been abolished.
33. It is also pertinent to mention that respondents have taken inconsistent and wrong stand in the counter affidavit in stating that petitioner was invited in the third round of counselling in which one Vandana Gond also appeared and quality point marks obtained by Vandana Gond was more than the petitioner, therefore, she was selected and petitioner was not selected. The said statement on the face of the record is incorrect, therefore, conduct of respondents in making false averments in the counter affidavit is not appreciated.
34. Since under Rules, 1983 the procedure prescribed for selection had been completed as the petitioner had appeared for counselling and her documents were retained for verification which according to petitioner had been verified, therefore, this Court finds that action of respondents in denying appointment to petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade in Hindi subject is arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable in law.
35. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and respondent-authority is directed to issue appointment letter to petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in LT Grade expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of production of copy of this judgement and extend all benefits to petitioner as applicable to her under the law. There shall be no order as to costs."
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, as the issue was already considered by this Court in Division Bench as well as co-ordinate Bench, in fact, the co-ordinate Bench while passing the order has considered the orders passed by this Court in Writ A No. 43893 of 2016 filed by Reema Rai, wherein the case of Reema Rai was considered and she was appointed subsequently by implementing the said order.
8. In view of the said circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of on same terms.
Order Date :- 8.8.2025
Noman
(Donadi Ramesh, J.)
