Allahabad High Court
Preeti Jatave And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 24 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42287
Reserved on : 17.03.2025
Delivered on : 24.03.2025
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 849 of 2021
Petitioner :- Preeti Jatave And 6 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava,Ashok Kumar Singh,Awadhesh Kumar,C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi,Shyam Krishna Gupta
Along with
1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10673 of 2021
Petitioner :- Devendra Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Tripathi,Dhiraj Kumar,Shantanu Khare,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar
2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2483 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ritesh Kumar Chaurasia And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Ranjan Srivastava,Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal,Ras Bihari Pradhan
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kauntey Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for Board of Basic Education (respondent No.3).
2. All the petitioners in above referred three writ petitions have participated in the Assistant Teacher recruitment examination, 2019 and all of them were selected. Appointment letters were issued to some of petitioners and other petitioners were waiting for their appointment letters.
3. In above background, an issue cropped up and when it was found that all petitioners were not qualified as on last date of submission of admission forms, their appointment were cancelled and process for other petitioners to issue appointment letters was not further proceeded.
4. The State respondents have held that result of CTET exam was issued on 04.01.2019, whereas last date of submission of form was 22.12.2018 as such it was observed that petitioners were not qualified on last date of submission of form, therefore, their candidature or appointment letters were cancelled.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners have not disputed the aforesaid facts, however, he submitted that within a very short period of last date of submission of form, all the petitioners have qualified CTET. The examination was held much prior to last date and they were not on default since their result was declared after some days of last date of submission of form.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submitted that different criteria could not be fixed in relation to different candidates, as it would be a case of arbitrariness. Learned Senior Counsel referred few paragraphs of writ petition bearing No.2483 of 2021 that common practice was not followed and cases of petitioners were considered on different footing i.e. they have suffered arbitrary orders. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter :-
"42. That even otherwise there exists no justification for treating 22.12.18 as the last date for registration/submission of application form or for adjudging possession of qualification on such date.
43. That even though 22.12.18 may have been originally specified as the last date for registration/filling up of application forms, in fact, applications were accepted till 5.1.19 held on 6.1.19 and their results also declared without raising any objection against their candidature.
44. That in support of the aforesaid the petitioners bring on record the under noted orders of the High court in pursuance to which applications were received from candidates till 5.1.19 and they were permitted participation in Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019 held on 6.1.19:-
i) Orders dated 22.12.18 and 2.1.19 passed in Special Appeal No.672 of 2018 (Srikant & ors. v. State of UP & ors.), true copies of which are being filed and marked as ANNEXURE NOS.18A & 18B to this petition.
ii) Order dated 4.1.19 passed in Service Single No.119 of 2019 (Sandhya Varma & ors. v. State of UP &ors.), a true copy of which is being filed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.19 to this petition.
45. That in support of the aforesaid facts, attention is also drawn tos the under noted Govt. Orders/Circulars:
i) Circular letter dated 8.6.20 issued by Secretary, Board of Basic Education with regard to 22.12.18 being taken into account for adjudging validity of qualifications, a true copy of which is being filed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.20 to this petition.
ii) Govt.Order dated 24.9.20 permitting appointment in pursuance to interim order passed by Supreme Court on 21.5.20, a true copy of which is being filed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.21 to this petition.
iii) Circular letter dated 11.10.20 issued by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education specifying the time schedule for appointment of 31,277 candidates who had been permitted appointments under order of the Supreme Court dated 21.5.20, a true copy of which is being filed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.22 to this petition.
iv) Circular letter dated 28.11.20 issued by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education permitting appointment against remaining 36,590 posts in pursuance to final judgment of Supreme Court dated 18.11.20 passed in SLP No.11198 of 2020, a true copy of which is being filed andmarked as ANNEXURE NO.23 to this petition.
v) Govt. Order dated 4.12.20 permitting various rectifications in application forms pertaining to details specified in the application forms for appearing in Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019, a true copy of which is being filed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.24 to this petition.
46. That a perusal of the Govt. Order dated 4.12.20 would demonstrate that difference in filling up the marks obtained in TET has been permitted to be rectified as a difference therein in no manner alters the merit position of the individual candidates.
47. That in the selection in question the last date for accepting the application forms and adjudging validity of qualifications has to be a common date pertaining to all applicants. Such date cannot vary with reference to different category of candidates.
48. That once applications have been accepted till 5.1.19, there exists no justification for adjudging the validity of certificates oif C-TET of the petitioners as on 22.12.18. In such view of the matter the C-TET passed by the petitioners on 4.1.19 has to be accepted as valid with no objection against the same."
7. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners also referred few paragraphs of supplementary affidavit dated 22.08.2022 and referred paragraph No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of it that similarly situated candidates were appointed even the petitioner No. 6 in Writ Petition No.849 of 2021 was given appointment subsequently. The above information was based on a reply under Right to Information Act. Learned Senior Counsel also referred judgments passed by co-ordinate Bench in case of Mahendra Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Govt. of U.P. and Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine All 3536 and for reference the relevant part of it is mentioned hereinafter :-
"13. At this stage the State Government realized that consequent to the extension of last for submission of forms frequently and several times a situation had arisen where different dates of eligibility had come into existence for different categories, as, in the absence of any such specific date having been stipulated in the Rules, the Government Order dated 09.12.2014 or the advertisement it was the last date for submission of forms which had to be treated as the date for determining eligibility. Thus, initially the date of determining eligibility (other than age eligibility) was 05.03.2015 but for the D. Ed. (Special Education) candidates it was extended to 16.04.2015-30.04.2015, for Special B.T.C. of the year 2007, 2007 and 2008 it was extended to 02.09.2015 to 11.09.2015 and for B. El. Ed. it was extended to 14.12.2015 to 28.12.2015, the cut of date for age limit was extended from 01.07.2014 to 01.07.2015. Therefore, the State Government in its wisdom opined that there has to be uniformity in the date of determination of eligibility otherwise there would be allegation of discrimination and arbitrariness in the selection as others who were eligible but did not apply by 05.03.2015 or those who acquired the eligibility after 05.03.2015 and were covered by the judgment and order of the Courts but could not apply or not having approached the Courts could not apply could feel aggrieved, therefore, in these circumstances, specially, as, in Anil Kumar Maurya case those who had acquired the qualifications after 05.03.2015 had been allowed to participate provisionally and even be appointed provisionally, therefore, the State Government felt that it would be unfair to deprive others who were similarly situated from participating, consequently, it issued the Government Order dated 18.12.2015 extending the last date for submission of forms for all to 15.01.2016 fixing the time schedule for their counselling as also subsequent issuance of appointment orders of all selected candidates through out the State of U.P.
26. The selection contemplated in the rules, does not involve any written examination or interview. This selection is based on marks already obtained by them in the earlier examinations. The select list has to be prepared as per the Rules of 1981 and the appendix annexed therewith. No large exercise was required to be undertaken as a consequence of the impugned decision. The counselling for the B. El. Ed. has not yet taken place and as it was bound to take place under the orders of the Court, it would require a reshuffling of the merit list prepared in the districts, if any. The fact that this may not be necessary in District-Faizabad, is not relevant, as, the Court is considering a policy decision which has an impact all over the State of U.P. and not merely in District-Faizabad, therefore, the Court while taking a decision in the matter should keep in mind the principles and rationale involved and not peculiar facts here and there, therefore, on principle "the decision is absolutely justified. "
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 referred following paragraphs of counter affidavit :-
"5. That under point no. 17 of the Government Order dated 01.12.2018 for Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination, it has been provided that under column (4) of online application form, candidates prior to submission/saving is bound to made a declaration that मैंने ऑनलाईन आवेदन के अन्तर्गत किये गये रजिस्ट्रेषन का प्रिन्ट निकाल कर उसमे की गयी प्रविष्टियो का मिलान मूल अभिलेखो से कर लिया है एवं उसे सही पाया है तथा मैं अपने रजिस्ट्रेषन को फाइनल सेव करने हेतु पूर्णतः सहमत हूँ, फाइनल सेव होने के उपरान्त मुझे अपने आवेदन मे संषोधन करने का कोई अवसर देय नही होगा।"
6. That at the time of making online application for Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination 2019 by the candidates and making declaration that: "मै शपथपूर्वक अभिकथन करता/करती हूँ कि ऑनलाईन रजिस्ट्रेषन/आवेदन मे भरी गयी समस्त प्रविष्टियां मेरे मूल अभिलेखो पर आधारित है तथा मेरे संज्ञान में सही एवं सत्य है। निर्धारित तिथि तक नियत शुल्क (विकलांग अभ्यर्थियो को छोड़कर) जमा करने पर ही मेरा ऑनलाइन आवेदन सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती परीक्षा 2019 हेतु विचारणीय होगा। मुझे विज्ञापन की दी गयी समस्त शर्ते मान्य है। आवदेन करने की तिथि को मेरे पास आवेदन पत्र मे उल्लिखित समस्त अंक पत्र/प्रमाण पत्र/आरक्षण एवं विषेष आरक्षण सम्बन्धी प्रमाण पत्र उपलब्ध है। यदि परीक्षा के पूर्व अथवा बाद मे जांचोपरान्त कोई भी विवरण असत्य अथवा गलत पाया जाता है तो सम्बन्धित अधिकारी को मेरा अभ्यर्थन निरस्त करने तथा मेरे विरूद्ध वैधानिक कार्यवाही करने का अधिकार होगा। यदि कोई भी सूचना गलत पायी गई तो उसका सम्पूर्ण उत्तरदायित्व मेरा होगा मैने फोटोयुक्त रजिस्ट्रेषन फार्म का प्रिन्ट निकाल कर उसका मिलान मूल अभिलेखो से कर लिया है एवं उसे सही पाया है तथा मै अपने रजिस्ट्रेषन को सबमिट करने हेतु पूर्णतः सहमत हूँ, फाइनल सबमिट होने के उपरान्त मुझे अपने आवदे मे कोई संषोधन करने का अवसर देय नही होगा।
मेरे द्वारा एक से अधिक ऑनलाइन आवेदन पूरित किये जाने पर, मेरे द्वारा पूर्व मे किये गये समस्त आवेदन को निरस्त करते हुए सहमति प्रदान की जाती है कि केवल अंतिम ऑनलाइन आवेदन को ही मान्य किया जाय"
7. That in view of the aforesaid facts, it is very clear that at the time of filling the online application form for Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019 the petitioners must have possessed the entire educational/training certificates as well as other documents."
9. Learned counsel referred judgment passed by this Bench in Prateeksha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC:34841 and for reference its relevant part is reproduced hereinafter :-
"It has not been disputed that order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 9826 of 2021, Anjali Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 8 Others , dated 05.10.2021 is against petitioner and same is reproduced hereinafter:
"Petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher appears to have been over looked on the ground that on the last date of filing application i.e. 22.12.2018, petitioner was not possessing minimum qualification for the post i.e. BTC. It appears that petitioner has passed BTC examination after clearing back paper in October, 2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the Government Order dated 5.3.2021 to submit that any change in the marks obtained, in the back paper was liable to be taken note of.
Claim of petitioner has however been rejected on 1.7.2021 by the District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur, on the ground that petitioner's claim for appointment is not covered by Government Order dated 5.3.2021.
Law is settled that eligibility of a candidate for appointment is to be seen with reference to the last date fixed for making of application. On the last date of making application i.e. 22.12.2018, petitioner was not possessing qualification of BTC. Merely because she has subsequently cleared the back paper would not mean that her eligibility from a retrospective date would stand revived. No exception can be taken if her claim is denied for such reasons.
Dismissed, accordingly."
Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on judgement passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Vinti Pandey Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others, 2021:AHC:127573, however, facts of present case are distinguished since in Vinti Pandey (Supra), question was in regard to increase in number after scrutiny, whereas, in present case petitioner was admittedly failed and therefore, he has appeared in back paper and thereafter he was passed, therefore undisputedly the petitioner was not qualified as on last date of submission of form.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is squarely covered by order passed in Anjali Singh (Supra) as referred above, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. "
10. Learned counsel also referred a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2013) 11 SCC 58 and its relevant part is reproduced hereinafter :-
"15. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] held : (SCC p. 175, para 10)
"10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. ... Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra [(1990) 2 SCC 669 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 377 : (1990) 13 ATC 708] and Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 14 ATC 766] ."
11. I have considered above submissions and perused record. As referred above, there is no dispute that all petitioners were not qualified on last date of submission of admission forms and they have acquired certificate of CTET, subsequent to last date.
12. Learned Senior Counsel has also not disputed the above factual aspect. Now the case rest up whether the decision that petitioners have suffered arbitrary decisions on ground that similarly situated candidates were granted appointment or some candidates were allowed to cure their mark-sheet or other requisite qualifications would grant petitioner an equal right or not.
13. The first issue whether the candidates required to possess all requisite qualification before last date of submission of admission forms or not is recently being discussed again in Ankita Thakur and Others Vs. H.P. Staff Selection Commission and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1472 and its relevant paragraph Nos. 43, 44 and 45 are reproduced hereinafter :-
"43. In Bedanga Talukdar (supra), this Court observed:
"29. ............... In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of Respondent 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
32. .......... It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. .............."
(Emphasis supplied)
44. The above decision has been followed in Sanjay K. Dixit (supra). Thus, the law is settled that if the extant Rules provide for the power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could be exercised only if such power is reserved in the advertisement. And when this power is exercised, there must be wide publicity of its exercise so that persons who are likely to benefit by exercise of such power may get opportunity to apply and compete.
45. In the instant case, it is not shown that the advertisement reserved the power to relax the essential eligibility qualifications specified in the advertisement at any later stage. Rather, the advertisement is specific that eligibility criteria must be fulfilled by an aspiring candidate by the last date fixed for receipt of the application. It is not demonstrated that after the decision to relax the eligibility criteria was taken, the same was widely publicised, and the last date to apply under the advertisement was extended to enable persons benefited by such relaxation to apply and compete. In these circumstances, in our view, the power to relax the eligibility criteria, even if it existed, was not exercised in consonance with the settled legal principles and it violated the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Issue No. (i) is decided in the terms above."
14. As referred, the law is well settled that eligibility criteria of condition unless provided otherwise in extant rules or advertisement must be fulfilled by a candidate by last of date of submission of application specified. In present case all petitioners have not fulfilled eligibility criteria before last date of submission of forms and they have not able to show any provision or law to relax the condition, therefore, this issue is decided against them Now the Court proceeds to consider the second issue i.e. arbitrariness.
15. It is the case of petitioners that appointment have been given to some candidates despite they were not qualified by last date of submission of form, however, the Court is of opinion that there is no concept of negative equality and for that few paragraphs of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in R. Muthukumar and Others Vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO and Others , 2022 OnLine SC 151, would be relevant which are reproduced hereinafter :-
"28. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, this court ruled that:
"8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated."
29. Other decisions have enunciated or applied this principle (Ref : Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745, Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164 K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P.,(2006) 3 SCC 581; Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455, and Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, (2014) 15 SCC 715). Recently, in The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1207 this court observed as follows:
"If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision."
16. In the aforesaid circumstances, since petitioners were neither qualified by last date of submission of form nor they are entitled for benefit of any negative equality and argument of arbitrariness on basis of negative equality is also rejected and judgment cited by petitioner would not be helpful to them, therefore, there is no ground to interfere with impugned orders or to direct respondents to give appointment to petitioners.
15. Accordingly, all writ petitions are dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.03.2025
P. Pandey
[SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.]
