Allowed

Ram Lakhan Pal S/O Late Sarju Prasad v. State of U.P.through Prn.Secy.Information SECTION-1 and Anor

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023WRIA/2201/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking promotion for the petitioner to the post of Scrutiniser (English). Finding that ignoring higher qualifications in the same discipline violates constitutional guarantees of equality, the Court quashed rejection orders and directed promotion of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 2.4.2009, 11.5.2009 and Government Order No.1972 dated 26th February 2009 quashed. Petitioner directed for promotion to post of Scrutiniser (English).

Ram Lakhan Pal S/O Late Sarju Prasad Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45149

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2201 of 2009

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan Pal S/O Late Sarju Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prn.Secy.Information Section-1 And Anor

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Singh Chauhan,Anurag Shukla,Sandeep Dixit,Sandeep Tiwari,Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Pratap Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶7

Heard Shri V.S. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 2.4.2009 passed by the opposite party no.2 contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition being arbitary and unreasonable with further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order of promotion dated 11.5.2009 passed by the opposite party no.2, contained in Annexure No.14 to the writ petition as well as the Government Order No.1972/Nineteen-1-1009-251/2009, dated 26th February 2009, contained in Annexure No.15 to the writ petition with consequential benefits. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the claim of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Scrutinizer (English) in accordance with law.

¶9

Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior clerk on 27.5.1996. The petitioner was granted bilingual allowance of Rs.200/- per month vide order dated 18.8.2001 which was enhanced to Rs.300 per month vide order dated 31.1.2006. The petitioner has been working and performing his duties with entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned right from the date of his initial date of appointment.

¶10

The conditions of service of the petitioner are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Information and Public Relations Department (Non-Technical)(Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules,1998'). Rule 5(6) provides source of recruitment on the post of Scrutinizer (English) i.e. 50% by way of promotion from amongst confirmed Junior

¶11

Clerks. Rule 16(1) prescribed minimum qualification of Graduate with English as a subject for appointment on the post of Scrutinizer (English).

¶12

On 1.10.2008, the opposite party no.2 invited application for promotion on the post of Scrutinizer (English) from amongst confirmed Junior Clerks. The petitioner having possessed higher qualification of M.A. in English applied for promotion on the post of Scrutinizer (English) along with Sri Amit Kumar Yadav placed at serial no.137 of the seniority list and junior to the petitioner.

¶13

On 20.3.209, the petitioner submitted representation before opposite party no.2 for promotion on the post of Scrutinizer (English). On 2.4.2009, the opposite party no.2 rejected the petitioner's representation for the promotion on the post of Scrutinizer (English) arbitrarily on the basis of order of the State Government dated 20.2.2009 but the copy of the order dated 20.2.2009 has not been supplied to him though demanded. On 11.5.2009, the opposite party no.2 promoted Sri Rehan Abbas, Urdu Typist and Sri Amit Kumar Yadav, Junior Clerk. On 15.5.1989, one Sri Om Prakash Rai has been appointed on the post of Translator (Hindi) on the basis of recommendation made by the Public Service Commission.

¶14

While assailing the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the impugned orders that what qualification the petitioner is lacking, therefore, the order being no reasoned order, is liable to be set aside.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that under Rule 8(7), the post of Scrutinizer (English) has been referred alongwith qualification prescribed which is being quoted below:

¶16

" (7) Scrtiniser (English): A Bachelor's degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto with English as one of the subjects.

¶17

Preferential: Knowledge of other language in addition to English."

¶18

On the basis of aforesaid, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is having English as one of the subjects in Graduation and Post Graduation in the subject of English from the recognized University, therefore being the higher qualification in the field, he is entitled for the grant of

¶19

promotion.

¶20

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

¶21

" (i) Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others reported in 2011(1)115 (P&H)(FB)

¶22

(ii) Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in (2015)17 Supreme Court Cases 709. "

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that higher qualification in the field cannot be ignored and cannot be held to be ineligible having the qualification in the same field in the higher class. He next submits that Shri Amit Kumar Yadav who is respondent no.4 has been granted further promotion ignoring the claim of the petitioner.

¶24

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner does not have requisite qualification for the grant of promotion on the post of Scrutiniser (English), therefore the impugned orders are just and valid and do not suffer from infirmity or illegality. He has invited attention of this Court on paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, wherein the qualification for the post of Scrutiniser (English) has been prescribed.

¶25

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record as well as law-reports cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, the operative portion of the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is extracted hereinbelow:

¶27

(i) Manjit Singh (supra):-

¶28

22. Thus, the final conclusion of the Court is:

¶29

"14. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the decision of the Commission not to entertain the candidature of the petitioners despite the fact that they possess higher qualifications in the same line is arbitary and legally unsustainable and the same has resulted in violation of the fundamental right to equality guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."

¶30

27. From the facts on record and dictum of above noticed judgments, it emerges that the candidate possessing their qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from

¶31

consideration for selection. It is a different matter that he/she may not be entitled to any additional weightage for higher qualification, but cannot be denied consideration at par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed qualification. Denying consideration to a candidate having better and higher qualification in the same line and discipline would definitely result in breach of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."

¶32

(ii) Parvaiz Ahmad Parry:-

¶33

" 16. In our view, if a candidate has done BSc in forestry as one of the major subjects and has also done Masters in Forestry i.e. M.Sc. (Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be held to possess the required qualification to apply for the post. In fact, acquiring higher qualification in the prescribed subject i.e. Forestry was sufficient to hold that the appellant had possessed the prescribed qualification. It was coupled with the fact that Forestry was one of the appellant's major subjects in graduation, due to which he was able to do his Masters in Forestry."

¶34

On bare perusal of the aforesaid two judgments, it is evident that the Full-Bench of Punjab & Harayana High Court as well as Hon'ble supreme Court have taken notice of higher education and held that the same cannot be ignored and higher qualification than the required qualification shall be taken into consideration while considering the claim of the parties to grant of promotion or appointment.

¶35

In the present case, the petitioner is having B.A. with the subject of general English and M.A. (English) which is higher qualification than the required, therefore the petitioner is entitled for the consideration of claim of promotion on the post of Scrutiniser (English). The submission advanced by learned Standing Counsel does not appear to be in force of law, therefore the same is rejected.

¶36

In view of the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case.

¶37

Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed . Order dated 2.4.2009 passed by the opposite party no.2 contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition and order of promotion dated 11.5.2009 passed by the opposite party no.2, contained in Annexure No.14 to the writ petition as well as the Government Order No.1972/Nineteen-1-1009-251/2009, dated 26th February 2009, contained in Annexure No.15 are hereby

¶38

quashed.

¶39

However, the respondent no.2 is directed to promote the petitioner on the post Scrutiniser (English) with effect from the date Shri Amit Kumar Yadav has been granted promotion. Consequential benefits shall also be provided in accordance with law.

¶40

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 GK Sinha

¶41

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Lakhan Pal S/O Late Sarju Prasad v. State of U.P.through Prn.Secy.Information SECTION-1 and Anor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lakhan Pal S/O Late Sarju Prasad v. State of U.P.through Prn.Secy.Information SECTION-1 and Anor

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

Gyanendra Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.through Secretary Secondary Education and 5 Ors.

Ram Avadh Yadav Vs M.D.U.P.State Sugar Corpn.Gomit Nagar and 1 Ors.

Subhash Chandra Vs Shri Srikant Goswami M.D. U.P Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.

Smt.Anjali Nakra Vs U.P.Police Avas Nigam through Chairman Cum M.D.and 1 Ors.

Smt.Sangita Moghe Vs State of U.P.

Laxmi Narain Dwivedi Vs Zila Sahkari Prambhik Krishi Sahkari Samti Kendriya Sewa