Allowed

Himanshu Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2021WRIA/5952/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature for the post of A.S.I. due to lack of an 'O' Level Certificate. Relying on a coordinate Bench's judgment in Aakash Verma, the Court directed reconsideration, holding that a B.Tech in IT covers the necessary syllabus.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the petitioner's candidature was to be reconsidered in accordance with the ratio laid down in the Aakash Verma judgment.

Himanshu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5952 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Himanshu Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Giri, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶7

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Uttar Pradesh Service Recruitment and Promotion Board to do the document verification of the petitioner by treating him as qualified and eligible candidate and petitioner be also subjected to further process of recruitment as contemplated under Rule 17 of Uttar Pradesh Police Ministerial, Accounts, Confidential Assistant Cadres Service (Ist Amendment) Rules 2016.

¶8

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the appointment on the post of A.S.I., by treating the degrees possessed by the petitioner as equivalent to "O" Level Certificate issued by COEACC/NIELIT. "

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 26.12.2016 issued by the respondent-State for the recruitment of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) the petitioner applied. After being successful in written examination the petitioner was allowed to appear in Document Verification Test as well as Physical Standard Test (DVT/PST). During the document verification test, which was held on 12.07.2019 the scrutiny committee found that the petitioner did not possess "O" Level Certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT and thus his candidature was cancelled.

¶10

However, no written order was issued.

¶11

It is contended by Sri Singh that the petitioner possesses degree of B. Tech (Information Technology) from the reputed institution which also consists same syllabus as "O" Level.

¶12

Reliance has been placed upon a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court sitting at Lucknow in Service Single No.20358 of 2019, Aakash Verma and 332 others vs. State of U.P. and others . Relevant paras 48 and 49 of the said judgment are extracted herein as under:-

¶13

"48. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad (supra), the required essential qualification was ITI certificate, as a prime qualification, and the appellants therein were possessing Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Electronics and Communication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of a specific statutory rule under which holding of higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification, the higher qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Electronics and Communication cannot be said to presuppose the required qualification of ITI certificate. However, in the case in hand, there are multiple essential qualifications required for the advertised posts. The petitioners' case is not that they are possessing higher degree, instead the only case is that syllabus of 'O' level computer course - which is one of the educational qualifications in the advertisement - is included in their basic education i.e. B.Tech (C.S.), B.Sc (C.S.), B.C.A. etc., being a 3 or 4 year degree/diploma courses, therefore, they are entitled to participate in the vacancy and need not to be in possession of 'O' level course from DOEACC/NIELIT, which is only a one year foundational course. If the same is not done, it would be highly undesirable to ask or require any person who has already completed a 3 or 4 year degree/diploma course in the domain of computer science to pursue and produce a certificate of one year ''O' Level Course which is a foundation course in the same domain. However, the requirement of ''O' Level Course is proper for candidates whose bachelor degrees like B.A., B.Com etc., are not in domain of computer science or those who are not entirely covered under the syllabus of 'O' level. In such circumstances, it is clearly evident that the ratio of Zahoor Ahmad case (supra) is not applicable in the instant case.

¶14

49. So far as ratio of Deepak Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the said case is also not applicable in the instant case because in Deepak Singh's (supra) there was a specific bar and the candidates holding higher degree were categorically excluded for being considered under the said advertisement, and also there was no material on record to show that qualification possessed by the petitioners therein was in same line of the progression. However, in the instant case there is no such bar and also there is sufficient material on record to establish that the qualification possessed by the petitioners herein covers the syllabus 'O' level Course, which is one of the basic essential qualification."

¶15

Sri P.K. Giri, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that in the case of Deepak Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No.24273 of 2018 decided on 23.07.2019 the Full Bench of this Court had held that the State Government, while prescribing the essential qualifications or desirable qualifications are best suited to decide the requirements for selecting a candidate for nature of work required by the State Government and the courts are precluded from laying down the conditions of eligibility. In the said judgement the Court held that the 'O' Level Diploma granted by NIELIT is not equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application.

¶16

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others (2019) 2 SCC wherein the Apex Court had held that in the absence of a specific statutory rule under which holding of higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification, higher qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Electronics and Communication cannot be said to presuppose the required qualification of ITI certificate. It was further contended that in view of these two judgements, the possession of 'O' Level Diploma Certificate by the petitioner was must though he might possess degree in B.Tech in I.T. that

¶17

would not presuppose requirement as laid down in the advertisement in regard to the educational qualification.

¶18

He has also placed before the Court Annexure-1 List of documents for document verification filed by the petitioner before the recruitment agency wherein in Column-B he has disclosed in preferential qualification document that he was possessing the bachelor degree in computer application.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record it transpires that the requirement, as per advertisement was that a candidate was to have a bachelor degree from University established by India and an additional certificate of "O" level in computer from DOEACC/NIELIT. It is the case of the petitioner that he had done bachelor degree in Information and Technology (I.T.) wherein "O" level course is taught thus requirement of "O" level certificate as per dictum of Akash Verma (Supra) is not required. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner has force to the extent that both judgements of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) and Deepak Singh (supra) have already been considered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the matter in Akash Verma . Thus no question arises from taking different view than the one taken by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26.03.2021.

¶20

Consequently writ petition is allowed.

¶21

Respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with law and direction as made in writ of Akash Verma (Supra).

¶22

Order Date :- 9.7.2021

¶23

Asha

Himanshu Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushma Matroja and Another Vs Children Paradise Academy School and Another

Arvind Kumar Vs Smt.Archana

Durga Prasad Sharma Vs Nagarpalika Parishad and Another

Smt. Poonam Tiwari Vs Gorakhpur Development Authority Gorakhpur

Avnish Kumar Vs Civil Judge, (Junior Division) and 2 Others

Nanu Alias Mamchand Vs Ajay and 6 Others