Allahabad High Court
Manisha Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(LUCKNOW)
*******************
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48783
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27549 of 2021
Petitioner :- Manisha Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ghaus Beg,Kumar Ayush,Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
(ORAL)
1. Heard Sri Nitish Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Sri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.
2. The petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order/ decision dated 06-05-2021, as contained in Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to pay the salary w.e.f. 04-12-2020/ 09-12-2020 to the petitioner in accordance with Law/ Rules of 1981, in the interest of justice.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot primary school to the petitioner strictly in order of merit after taking into account the preference express for allotment within a period specified by this Hon'ble court strictly by following the provisions Rules of 1981 by specifically notifying the marks of A.T.R.E., the quality point marks, and the category of the candidate as well as the category in which the candidates have been selected in the interest of justice."
3. Under challenge is the order dated 06.05.2021, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher has been cancelled, while placing reliance on the Government Order dated 05.03.2021. The name of the petitioner finds place at serial No.13 in the said order.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher had been issued on 01.12.2018, a copy of which is annexure-2 to the petition. The examination took place on 08.01.2019 and the petitioner was declared selected and was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 04.12.2020.
5. Subsequent thereto, by means of the order impugned, the selection of the petitioner along with several others has been cancelled. However, so far as the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner is concerned, the same has been cancelled by indicating that the caste certificate bearing the name of the father of the petitioner has not been submitted by 28.05.2020. The same has been indicated on the basis of a Government Order dated 05.03.2021, more particularly clause-(2) of the said Government Order, which has been filed as annexure-18 to the petition. Clause-(2) of the said Government Order indicates that with respect to the appointment of 69000 Assistant Teachers, those candidates who are having a caste certificate subsequent to 28.05.2020, which was the last date fixed for receiving applications, their selection be cancelled. Copy of the Government Order dated 05.03.2021 is annexure-18 to the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste (S.C.). The petitioner had filled in the application form while applying for the said post, duly indicating her caste as "S.C.". A copy of the said application form is annexure-8 to the petition. The petitioner had indicated her caste on the basis of the caste certificate dated 04.08.2013, a copy of which is annexure-13 to the petition (page-78), which indicates the name of the petitioner along with the name of her husband.
7. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of the scrutiny of the documents on 02.12.2020, she had produced the aforesaid caste certificate dated 04.08.2013. However, the respondents insisted that the caste certificate should bear the name of her father. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for issuance of a second caste certificate indicating her father's name, which has been issued on 21.12.2020, a copy of which is part of annexure-13 to the petition (page-79).
8. The respondents, considering that the caste certificate dated 21.12.2020 has been submitted subsequent to the last date fixed, which was 28.05.2020, as such, her candidature has been cancelled by means of the order impugned.
9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the guidelines which are accompanying the advertisement for the 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers, a copy of which is annexure-2 to the petition, deals with a caste certificate in clause-(3), which only indicates that the S.C./ S.T./ O.B.C. candidates would be granted relaxation of five years in age, without indicating the format of the caste certificate or any other matter indicating that the caste certificate should bear the name of the father of the candidate, and in absence of any specific stipulation to the same, the petitioner had applied in pursuance to the said advertisement indicating her caste as "S.C.", which was based on the caste certificate dated 04.08.2013 that had been issued indicating the name of the petitioner's husband, but it is only upon the respondents insisting on a caste certificate bearing the name of her father that the caste certificate was applied for and issued on 21.12.2020 and had been submitted by the petitioner, which has prevailed on the respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.
10. The contention is that once the guidelines accompanying the said advertisement itself did not specify that the caste certificate necessarily had to bear the name of the candidate's father, consequently, it cannot be said that there was any fault on the part of the petitioner if she had submitted a caste certificate bearing the name of her husband.
11. The further contention is that even considering the caste certificate which has been issued in the name of her father, the caste of the petitioner does not change, inasmuch as she continues to remain a reserved category candidate (S.C.), and thus the order impugned cancelling the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be legally tenable in the eyes of law.
12. On the other hand, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, have argued that even though in the order impugned, a reference has been made to the Government Order dated 05.03.2021, which indicates that the caste certificate issued after 28.05.2020 entails the selection/appointment of the candidate, yet the said Government Order dated 05.03.2021 is a clarificatory order to the Government Order dated 04.12.2020.
13. Placing reliance on the Government Order dated 04.12.2020, a copy of which has been produced before the Court and kept on record, it is contended that clause-(3) of the Government Order dated 04.12.2020 refers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Valsamma Paul (Mrs) vs. Cochin University and others, (1996) 3 SCC 545, to indicate that merely because a lady gets married to a person of another caste, her caste would not change; rather, the caste in which she has been born would be the caste of the lady candidate concerned. It also indicates that those lady candidates who have submitted caste certificates, which do not bear the name of their father; rather the caste is claimed on the basis of the husband and have received the benefit of reservation for selection, their selection should be cancelled.
14. In this regard, reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-A No.7806 of 2021 in re: Sunita Kumar Patel vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 10.08.2021.
15. It is thus contended that a perusal of the Government Order dated 04.12.2020 makes it emphatically clear that the caste certificate which was to be submitted by the candidate was necessarily to bear the name of the candidate's father, and as the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner dated 04.08.2013 did not bear the name of her father; rather, the caste certificate which bears the name of the father has only been submitted subsequent to 28.05.2020, as such, no error has been occasioned by the respondents in passing the order impugned.
16. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that the petitioner had applied for selection against the advertisement for 69,000 posts of Assistant Teachers. The guidelines accompanying the said advertisement only indicate that a reserved category candidate would be granted relaxation in the age limit by five years. No specific format of the caste certificate or any reference to the Government Order dated 04.12.2020 was indicated, and even otherwise could not have been indicated, inasmuch as the advertisement itself is dated 17.05.2020, while the Government Order relied upon by the respondents is dated 04.12.2020.
17. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that in the guidelines issued by the respondents, it was not indicated anywhere that the caste certificate to be submitted by a reserved category candidate should necessarily bear the name of the father of the candidate. In absence thereof, the petitioner had claimed reservation in the capacity of being a reserved category candidate and had submitted the caste certificate dated 04.08.2013, which incidentally bore the name of her husband. It is only subsequent thereto that the petitioner was required to submit a caste certificate bearing the name of her father, which has been applied for and issued on 21.12.2020, indicating the name of the father.
18. It would be pertinent to mention that even as per the caste certificate issued to the petitioner showing the name of her father, the caste of the petitioner does not change, inasmuch as she continues to remain a reserved category candidate (S.C.).
19. The respondents, on the basis of a Government Order dated 05.03.2021, which in turn clarifies the Government Order dated 04.12.2020, have cancelled her selection.
20. As already indicated above, once the guidelines accompanying the advertisement did not specify that the caste certificate was to necessarily bear the name of the candidate's father, consequently, any such Government Order issued subsequent thereto, i.e., on 04.12.2020 as clarified on 05.03.2021, would obviously not govern the selection and the advertisement which had already taken place prior to the issuance of the aforesaid Government Orders.
21. Thus, it is apparent that the respondents have patently erred in law and have passed the impugned order, so far as it pertains to the petitioner, with patent non-application of mind, without even adverting to the facts of the case.
22. So far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Kumar Patel (supra) is concerned, suffice it to state that the said judgment does not consider the advertisement and the terms and conditions of the said advertisement, as already indicated above, and as such, in case any observations have been made without considering the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the same may not be of any help to the respondents.
23. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the order impugned dated 06.05.2021, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, so far as it pertains to the petitioner is quashed.
24. Consequences to follow.
[Abdul Moin, J.]
Order Date :- 20.8.2025
cks/-
