Smt. Rita Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Service Lko and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 57 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Rita Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Service Lko And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶6

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 7

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Mr. Alok Mishra learned counsel for the review applicant and learned state counsel for opposite parties.

¶10

Review application has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 5th May 2023 passed in writ A No. 3316 of 2023.

¶11

The review application has been nominated to this Bench by means of order dated 19th September 2025 by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶12

(Application for Condonation of Delay)

¶13

An application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in challenging the aforesaid judgment. Although objections have not been filed against the application, cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application is sufficient and as such delay in preferring the review application is condoned.

¶14

(Memo of Review Application)

¶15

Review application has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 5th May 2023 passed in writ A No. 3316 of 2023 whereby the writ petition was disposed of exercising equity jurisdiction and directing the opposite party No. 2 to take a fresh typing test of the petitioner for qualifying the typing proficiency of 25 words per minute for being

¶16

CMRAD No. 57 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

allowed to continue on the promotional post of Senior Assistant.

¶19

It has been submitted that earlier the aforesaid writ petition had been filed challenging order dated 4th April 2023 whereby petitioner was demoted to a class IV post since she was unable to qualify the typing test conducted on 25th March 2022. It is submitted that a typing test was thereafter conducted for a second time on 3rd April, 2023 but the petitioner was unable to qualify for the same leading to passing of the order impugned in the writ petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per the relevant rules of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time, it has been specifically indicated that a typing test is required to be taken within one year of providing appointment or almost within a period of two years. It is submitted that in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed on 29th July 2016 on the post of Junior Assistant but her typing assessment was conducted for the first time after seven years on 25th March 2022 in which she failed to qualify and a second typing test was thereafter conducted on 3rd April 2023 in which also she failed to qualify whereafter by means of the impugned judgment, a third opportunity was granted to petitioner for qualifying the typing test.

¶21

It is submitted that it is law settled by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi and others, (2004) 3 SCC 628 that a procedure prescribed is required to be followed in the same manner as prescribed or not to be done at all. It is submitted that in the present case, the rules once specifically indicate only two typing tests to be taken, there was no occasion for this court to have prescribed a third typing test. It is also submitted that since the rules prescribed the typing test to be taken within maximum period of two years from the date of appointment, the typing test held seven years after petitioner's appointment and subsequent promotion on the post of Senior Assistant was against the provisions. It is thus submitted that once the opposite parties failed to conduct the typing test within initial period of two years from the date of appointment, there was no occasion for them to have held the first typing test seven years after appointment.

¶22

CMRAD No. 57 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Mr. Aniruddh Singh learned state counsel has refuted submissions advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner with submission that the provision for a typing test for appointment on class III post is a mandatory condition and it is also settled law that there cannot be any estoppel against statute due to which the mandatory condition of petitioner succeeding in typing test for appointment on class III post can not be waived. It is also submitted that petitioner has failed to indicate any error apparent on the face of record due to which the review is not maintainable.

¶25

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that by means of impugned judgment and order dated 5th May 2023, this court has exercised equity jurisdiction granting a third opportunity to petitioner to clear the typing test in order to continue on class III post since by means of impugned order, she has been demoted to class IV post.

¶26

No doubt there is no provision for a third typing test to take place to permit petitioner to qualify but it is also evident that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of equity jurisdiction and merely in order to enable petitioner to continue on a class III post and to avoid her reversion/fresh appointment on the class IV post. The grounds taken by petitioner in the present review application do not indicate any error apparent on the face of record particularly in view of admitted position that after passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 5th May, 2023, the petitioner actually participated in the third typing test and failed to qualify the same. In the considered opinion of this court, the grounds taken by review applicant may be useful in appellate jurisdiction but not in a review jurisdiction which is bound by the aspects of error which would be apparent on the face of record.

¶27

Since review applicant has not been able to indicate any error apparent on the face of record, review application thus fails and is dismissed.

¶28

October 8, 2025

¶29

prabhat

¶30

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶31

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

Smt. Rita Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Service Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rita Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Service Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Verma @ Amit Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Om Prakash Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Satyam Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Dr. Dev Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Animal Husbandry U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food Safety Drug Administration Lko. and Another

Kunver Dhirendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health Services Lko. and 3 Others