Ruchi Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Social and Welfare Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ruchi Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Social and Welfare Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 2 within two weeks; respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks. Mandamus sought for interview participation was not granted; eligibility question left undecided.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondent no. 2 to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview for the post of Instructor (Dress Making) pursuant to the 2015 advertisement, from whose shortlist she was excluded. +2 more

Court's answer

Without adjudicating the eligibility dispute, the court permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 2 within two weeks, and directed that respondent no. 2 consider and decide it by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands disposed of on the above direction (neither allowed nor dismissed on merits).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 18) — WRIT - A No. 4574 of 2025; Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; order dated 28.4.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:24084). Petitioner Ruchi Srivastava, not shortlisted for interview for the post of Instructor (Dress Making) under a 2015 advertisement on the ground of lacking the prescribed qualifications (National Trade Certificate, National Apprenticeship Certificate, and diploma of the U.P. Technical Education Board in Dress Making/Fashion Designing/Garment Technology/Fashion Technology), sought mandamus against respondent no. 2 for permission to participate in the interview, relying on a Samaj Kalyan Vibhag diploma claimed to be recognised under Government Order dated 14.11.2019. The court did not decide the eligibility question; with counsel's joint suggestion and no objection from the respondents' counsel, it disposed of the petition, permitting a fresh representation to respondent no. 2 within two weeks, to be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order within a further four weeks.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24084

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4574 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ruchi Srivastava

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Social And Welfare Lko. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Tiwari,Ravindra Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1, and Ms. Mariya Fatima, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, whose vakalatnama has been taken on record.

By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing opposite party no. 2 to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview for the post of Instructor (Dress Making), pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2015, annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Instructor (Dress Making) pursuant to the advertisement contained in Annexure No. 2. However, her name does not appear in the list of candidates shortlisted for interview on the ground that she does not possess the requisite qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner holds a diploma issued by the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag, and as per the Government Order dated 14.11.2019, such certificate is recognized as valid.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 opposes the petition and submits that under the terms of the

advertisement, a candidate must possess a National Trade Certificate and National Apprenticeship Certificate along with a diploma issued by the U.P. Technical Education Board in Dress Making/Fashion Designing/Garment Technology/Fashion Technology. Since the petitioner does not fulfill these eligibility criteria, her name was not shortlisted for the interview.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation raising her grievances to respondent no. 2, with a direction for its disposal within a stipulated time period.

Learned Chief Standing Counsel and Ms. Mariya Fatima, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, have no objection to this innocuous prayer.

In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 2 within two weeks from today. If such a representation is submitted, respondent no. 2 shall consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Order Date :- 28.4.2025 R.C.

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench