Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Vidhan Parishad Lko. and Another

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Ms. Akansha Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1.

¶11

This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-

¶12

" I. Declare clause xiv-A (i) of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat Service (Recruitment and Conditions Of Service) Fourth Amendment Rules, 2019, as ultra vires of the constitution of India.

¶13

II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby staying operation and implementation of the Rule 20 (1) & (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat Service (Recruitment and Conditions Of Service) Fourth Amendment Rules, 2019, and its consequential effect on the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat Service (Recruitment and Conditions Of Service) Rules, 1976 UP state Legislative council secretariat (Recruitment and conditions of service) rules, to the extent it restricts equitable and adequate opportunity of promotion to class IV employees. "

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Class-IV employee and in the earlier Rules governing appointments and promotions, there was no specific provision for promotion to Class-IV employees and Class-IV employees could also be promoted. However, a Fourth Amendment has been notified to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council Secretariat Service (Recruitment and Conditions Of Service) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and has introduced five temporary posts of Computer Assistant and also fixed an arbitrary reservation in favour of dependents of deceased employees

¶15

WRIA No. 14389 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

to the tune of 80% on the post of Computer Assistants. Only 20% have been left to the Class-IV employees which in effect comes out to only one post of Computer Assistant available for promotion of ClassIV employees.

¶18

It has been submitted that for the past 18 years Class-IV employees have been deprived of their right to fair and adequate opportunity of being considered for promotion. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

¶19

Ms. Akansha Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1, on the basis of instructions, states that the opposite party no. 1 has proposed a further amendment to the 1976 Rules, which has been sent to the Hon'ble State Cabinet. It has been proposed that instead of promotional avenue of Class-IV employees to the post of Computer Assistants, they will be eligible for being promoted directly as Assistant Review Officer. Reservation for them to the tune of 15% of the Cadre Strength has been proposed that would workout to around 20 posts of Assistant Review Officers.

¶20

We do not know when such Rules of 1976 shall be amended as per the proposal of the opposite party no1. Prima facie we find that Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 14A reserving 80% of the posts to be filed by the dependents of the deceased employees appears to be arbitrary and against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which treats dying-in-harness Rules/appointment of dependents of deceased employees as only an exception to the Principle of Equal Opportunity as provided under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Compassionate appointment cannot be treated as a regular mode of recruitment. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Supreme Court has observed that as a rule, in public service appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises. If rules and regulations are framed or even administrative orders are issued, they must stand the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶21

It is also not clear from the impugned Rule XIV-A(1) as to how many posts will be open for direct recruitment because the language of the Rule provides that if adequate number of dependents of deceased are not available or are not found suitable, direct recruitment will be made under the procedure laid down by the Chairman.

¶22

We are conscious of the fact that the Rules of 1976 have been

¶23

WRIA No. 14389 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

framed in exercise of power of delegated legislation and there is a presumption as to validity of such legislation. However, such delegated legislation should also be in consonance with the parent act which in this case is the Constitution. We cannot be oblivious of our duty to uphold the fundamental right to equality of opportunity guaranteed under the Constitution and our oath to uphold the constitution which is the " Grund Norm " of our democracy. Moreover, making of the rules for a purpose which was not the object of the Act, held, amount to unreasonable exercise of rule-making power. The Rule XIV-A Sub-Rule 1 prima facie is arbitrary and violates the fundamental right to equality of opportunity. We, therefore, stay the operation of such rule, till further orders, only to the extent of provision being made therein for compassionate appointment to 80% of the posts of Computer Assistants from amongst dependents of deceased employees.

¶26

It will always be open for the respondent no.1 to carry out direct recruitment through regular selection on such vacancies.

¶27

Issue notice to the learned Advocate General as the validity of the 4th Amendment to the Rules of 1976 are being challenged.

¶28

List this case on 30.01.2026.

¶29

December 12, 2025 Darpan Sharma

¶30

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Vidhan Parishad Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Vidhan Parishad Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs Sanjay Gandhi P.G. Institute of Medical Sciences Thru. Its Director Sgpgims Lko. and 3 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence Air Force New Delhi and 3 Others vs No. 823075 L Ex. Nc(E) Shyam Sharan Shukla

Three Members Comm. Const. Under Sec 29 of U.P. Kshetra Panchayat Adhiniyam Thru D.M. Lko and Ors. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Panchayati Raj and 5 Others

Ram Raheesh vs Preeti Kashyap

Syad Fauad Ali Sabzposh (Mutwalli) Thru. Power of Attorney Holder Syad Tahir Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Minorties Welfare and Waqf Deptt. and 4 Others

Banke Lal Mauriya and Another vs Distt. Magistrate Sultanpur and 3 Others