Abhishek Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 2 Others

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3008 of 2025

Petitioner :- Abhishek Mishra

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Stamp And Registration Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Pati Shukla,Shrey Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶7

In compliance of order dated 12.5.2025, Mr. Dinesh Shankar Bajpai, officer of the department concerned is present in court.

¶8

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 6.3.2025 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) along with issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to conduct typing test (Hindi) of the petitioner and with a further prayer to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Junior Assistant/Junior Clerk in the office of Assistant Inspector General of Stamp and Registration, Camp Office, Lucknow.

¶9

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on 01.11.2019 in the office of the opposite party no. 3. After his appointment, he has acquired 'CCC' certificate issued by NICT,

¶10

Institute of Information Technology and Management.

¶11

He submits that the petitioner is having an unblemished record. His first typing test was taken and he was declared failed. His second typing test was taken on 23.10.2024, but due to injury in his right wrist, he could not clear the second typing test. A copy of the medical certificate is filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition and due to this medical ailment, he could not secure the minimum speed of 25 words per minute in Hindi typing, which resulted in passing of the impugned order (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

¶12

He submits that the petitioner was terminated from his service from the post of Junior Assistant/Junior Clerk, which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

It is next submitted that the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 1.11.2019 (Annexure-3 to writ petition) clearly provides in para no. 6 that the petitioner shall be on probation for a period of two years and within a period of one year, he will have to acquire 'CCC' certificate issued by DOEACC and a certificate for 25/30 words per minute Hindi/English typing speed issued by the Government, failing which the annual increment shall be stopped and further one year will be provided to acquire the required speed.

¶14

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the first two years of probation, no typing test of the petitioner was taken and the opposite parties have taken the first typing test of the petitioner on 03.06.2022 which is beyond a period of two years i.e., after completion of probation period, which is contrary to The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2014 (for short, 2014 Dying in Harness Rules).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad in Writ A No.3792 of 2025 Khushboo Singh versus State of U.P. and others in similar matters has passed interim order(s).

¶16

4.Learned standing counsel on the basis of instructions submits that as per 2014 Dying in Harness Rules under which the petitioner was appointed, he was required to clear typing test with a minimum speed of 25 words per minute within one year, failing which the annual increment shall be stopped and further one year will be provided to acquire the required speed. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted further one year period, however, he could not acquire the required speed. He failed in both the typing tests. He further submits that in view of further amendment vide The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Govt. Servants Dying in Harness

¶17

(Thirteenth Amendment) Rules, 2022, the petitioner has been given appointment on classIV post.

¶18

In have considered the submission and gone through the record.

¶19

6.A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was appointed under 2014 Dying in Harness Rules and The U.P. Government Department Ministerial Cadre Service Rules, 2014. As per 2014 Dying in Harness Rules, the first typing test was to be conducted in the first year of recruitment in which the petitioner was required to pass typing test, failing which one increment was to be stopped and he was required to appear in the second typing test. For convenience, Rule 5(1) of amended Dying in Harness Rules is being reproduced hereinunder:

¶20

" 5 (1) Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased - In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules, and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government Service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person

¶21

(i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post:

¶22

Provided that in case appointment is to be made on a post for which typewriting has been prescribed as an essential qualification and the dependent of the deceased Government servant does not possess the required proficiency in typewriting, he shall be appointed subject to the condition that he would acquire the requisite speed of 25 words per minute in typewriting well within one year and if he fails to do so, his general annual increment shall be withheld and a further

¶23

period of one year shall be granted to him to acquire the requisite speed in typewriting and if in the extended period also he again fails to acquire the requisite speed in typewriting, his services shall be dispensed with.

¶24

Provided further that in case appointment is to be made on a post for which the knowledge of computer operation and typewriting has been prescribed as an essential qualification and the dependent of the deceased Government servant does not possess the required proficiency in computer operation and typewriting, he shall be appointed subject to the condition that he would acquire the 'CCC' certificate in computer operation awarded by the DOEACC Society or a certificate equivalent thereto from an Institution recognized by the Government together with the required speed of 25 words per minute in typewriting well within one year and, if he fails to do so, his general annual increment shall be withheld and a further period of one year shall be granted to him to acquire the required certificate in computer operation and the required speed in typewriting and if in the extended period also he again fails to acquire the required certificate in computer operation and the required speed in typewriting, his services shall be dispensed with."

¶25

(ii) is otherwise qualified for Government services; and

¶26

(iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant:

¶27

Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, if may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner:

¶28

Provided further that for the purpose of the aforesaid proviso, the person concerned shall explain the reasons and give proper justification in writing regarding the delay caused in making the application for employment after the expiry of the time limit fixed for making the application for employment along with the necessary documents/proof in support of such delay and the Government shall, after taking into consideration all the facts leading to such delay, take the appropriate decision."

¶29

It is not disputed between the parties that the petitioner after his appointment on 1.11.2019 has not been subjected to typing test in the first year of recruitment. Even in the second year of recruitment, no typing test was taken although it was mandatory as per rules. As per admitted case,

¶30

the first typing test was taken on 3.6.2022 for which there was no provision in the rules. Thus, question before the court is whether the respondents could have ignored the mandatory provision of the Rules and could have taken the typing test as per their own convenience beyond the statutory period provided under the Rules.

¶31

7.The matter requires consideration.

¶32

8.Four weeks' time is allowed to file counter affidavit, two weeks then for the rejoinder.

¶33

9.List on 30.7.2025.

¶34

In the meantime, operation of impugned order dated 6.3.2025 (supra) shall remain stayed provided the petitioner has not already joined on Class-IV post as directed in the impugned order.

¶35

Order Date :- 14.5.2025

¶36

kkb/

¶37

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

Abhishek Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishak Janpad Shiksha Society Thru. Its Sabhapati Subhash Rao and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Fahmida Khatoon and 2 Others Vs Sabnoor Bano and 5 Others

M/s. India Housing, through its Authorized Representative Shri Virendra Nath Shukla Vs M/s. Quest Retail Private Ltd., through its Director, Ashok Patni

Ram Bhawan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Lucknow Thru. the Manager Vs Sundari Devi and 3 Others

Nandini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy., Child Development Service and Nutrition, Lko. and 4 Others