Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 14 November, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:202630
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 2665 of 2023
Vinod Kumar And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Prabhakar Awasthi, Mushir Khan, Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Santosh Kumar Yadav
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mushir Khan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. This is second round of litigation. Facts of present case are extracted from a judgment dated 28.03.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court when petitioner and other has approached this Court by way of filing Writ A No. 11094/2018 impugning an order dated 27.06.2014 whereby approval of appointment of petitioner and others on the post of Teacher was disapproved on basis of objections. Said writ petition was allowed with directions and for reference, facts of case, observations and directions of said judgment are quoted below :-
"Facts of present case :-
3. The brief facts of the writ petition are that Sri Ram Ratan Gupta, Ayodyogik Krishi Inter College, Jhinjak, District- Kanpur Dehat, is a recognized Intermediate College, receiving grant-in-aid till High School section; that on account of retirement and promotion, several vacancies of Assistant Teachers came into existence in the institution and on the application dated 15.06.2012 of the college, the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat, granted permission dated 31.05.2013 to fill the aforesaid vacancies. Advertisements in three newspapers, namely, Aaj, Rashtriya Sahara and Pioneer were published inviting applications for three posts reserved for S.C., O.B.C. and two posts for general candidates. Subsequently, a corrigendum was published wherein four posts were shown as reserved for S.C., one for O.B.C. and two for general candidates; that all the petitioners belonged to S.C. category and have passed their T.E.T for primary level. In the meeting of Selection Committee dated 28.07.2013, wherein the experts sent by District Inspector of Schools also participated, the petitioners were selected for appointment. On 28.09.2013, papers were forwarded by the college to the District Inspector of Schools for approval and the District Inspector of Schools forwarded the same to the Regional Level Committee on 31.10.2013; that thereafter, some queries were made by the Regional Level Committee which were duly replied by the college; that by the order dated 26.06.2014, the respondent no. 2, Regional Level Committee, refused to accord approval to the selection of the petitioners and by the letter dated 27.06.2014, respondent no. 3, District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat, communicated the same to the college.
Relevant part of judgment :-
"9. After hearing rival contentions, this Court finds that there were only 7 vacancies regarding the posts of Assistant Teachers in the institution which were advertised and subjected to selection as per the procedure with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools. The posts advertised regarding S.C. category were 4, the petitioners are only 3 in numbers and in case they have been appointed on the 3 vacant posts of S.C. category, it cannot be faulted on the account that six posts were required for S.C. category. The Regional Level Committee has recorded the finding regarding 24 vacancies which was not based on any material nor any material has been brought on record in this regard along with the counter affidavit. The submissions made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 are not supported by any documents. There is no finding that the petitioners have been appointed without there being any vacancy in S.C. category. The finding recorded by the Regional Level Committee does not appears to be in accordance with the correct factual position. The appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers on S.C. category post is upheld.
10. The impugned order dated 26.06.2014 passed by Regional Level Committee, Kanpur Region, Kanpur and also the order dated 27.06.2014 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat, are hereby quashed. The Regional Level Committee shall grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners on their respective posts within three weeks. The petitioners are directed to be paid their month to month salary and also the arrears of salary from the date of their initial appointments within a period of 8 weeks from today."
3. The State of U.P. filed a Special Appeal (D) No. 327/2022 against above referred judgment, however, it was dismissed with certain observations. For reference, relevant part of order dated 30.09.2022 is quoted below :-
"Another notable feature of the case is that neither in the order impugned in the writ petition nor in the counter affidavit a stand is taken with regard to any illegality in the selection process or with regard to ineligibility of the writ petitioners for appointment on the post. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single judge. However, as the Regional Level Committee while refusing approval has not taken notice of the eligibility of the writ petitioners for appointment as also with regard to the validity of the selection proceeding, it is clarified that the Regional Level Committee before according approval, as directed by the learned single judge, shall be entitled to consider those aspects and take a decision thereon as per law. But, it shall not refuse approval on the ground which the learned single judge has found invalid. To the extent indicated above, the order of the learned single judge stands clarified.
Subject to above, the special appeal is dismissed."
4. In pursuance of above, Regional Level Committee (R.L.C.) passed the order dated 21.12.2022 whereby appointment of petitioners and one other was disapproved. For reference, relevant part thereof is quoted below :-
"?? ?????? ????????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??. ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ?????? ????? ?? ???????????/4963-64/2022-23, ??????: 15.09.2022?????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????????? / ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????-?????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?????-???? ?? ?????? ???????? ??, ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?? 07 ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ???????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ??? ??????? / ????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????????? ??? ???????? ??????: 25.05.2012 ??? ?????? 08.04.2013 ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ??, ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ????? (????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ??????) ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????????? ??????? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ????????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??????????? ?? ??????????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? / ??????????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? / ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???????? / ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??????????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? / ??????????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?????????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? / ??????????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? 22?? ?????? 120 ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? 29 ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? 126 ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ???? / ??? ???? ??? ??? ? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ???//???????? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??? / ??????????? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ??? / ???????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??????????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ??? 39 ??????????? ?? ??? / ??????????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ????????, ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ????????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ??, ?????? ???? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???
??? ?????? ???? ???????? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ??0-327/2022 ??? ?????? 30.09.2022 ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ????????? ???? ???? ???"
5. Aforesaid order is impugned in this writ petition.
6. Learned Senior Advocate submits that in pursuance of above referred two orders passed by this Court, Joint Director issued a show cause notice to which petitioners have submitted their reply, however, impugned order was passed by the Regional Level Committee, therefore, impugned order was passed without even issuing a proper show cause notice.
7. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that directions passed by this Court, as referred above, was very limited and it does not grant liberty to Regional Level Committee to open proceedings of Selection Committee and to reject the approval of petitioner and 2 others by giving reasons that they were illegally benefitted to grant appointment.
8. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that reasons assigned in impugned order are based on assumption without any specific basis.
9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported impugned order that once it was found that despite petitioners' got lessor marks on basis of their education, they were intentionally granted much higher marks in interview so that they may qualify under category of OBC and that candidates who got higher marks on basis of their education were granted very less marks in interview so that they be ousted.
10. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.
11. In first round of litigation, the Division Bench of this Court has kept open for R.L.C. to consider the validity of selection proceedings, however, it could not be construed that entire selection process and material before Selection Committee may be looked into and to take a contrary view, except in the exceptional circumstances, if it was absolutely illegal or some fraud was played.
12. The argument that notice was issued by Joint Director and impugned order was passed by R.L.C., therefore, petitioners were prejudiced is not sustainable since in the impugned order, material relied upon could not be disputed since it was based on records available before R.L.C. i.e. marks awarded in interview. There is no dispute about marks awarded on basis of education of petitioners and others.
13. The only dispute remains that whether intentionally and in order to unsuit other eligible candidates who had more marks in terms of their education, petitioners were awarded much higher marks in interview so that they could come in merit despite they have quite lessor marks on basis of their education.
14. From perusal of details mentioned in impugned order, so far as marks are concerned, (under category of OBC), the petitioners got 68 and 77 marks on basis of their education that is on lower side but they got 49 and 48 out of 50 respectively in interview, thus, they got total marks of 117 and 125 respectively and they were selected.
15. However, Court is not satisfied that without any material or any substantive reason that granting such higher marks in interview would itself a reason to conclude that process was remained unfair qua to appointment of petitioners. There must be something more to reach such conclusion that selection process was vitiated or compromised to the extent of candidature of petitioners. However, such findings are not part of impugned order. No aggrieved candidate has made any complaint. Some candidates got very low marks in interview though attained higher arks on basis of their education.
16. It is not always true that a person who got higher marks during his education must get higher marks in interview also since it could be vice-versa that it may be a case that a person who got lessor marks in examination could secure good marks in interview. It is based on how the candidate has faced an interview on a particular date.
17. Therefore, in absence of any substantial material, conclusion of respondent R.L.C. that it is a case where petitioners were benefitted does not appear to be a correct finding.
18. In view of above, impugned order dated 21.12.2022 is set aside and its legal consequence shall follow including continuation of service except that period for which petitioners have not worked shall be treated as "no work no pay".
19. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
November 14, 2025
N. Sinha
