Pushpavati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Shiksha U.P. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43375

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8205 of 2025

Petitioner :- Pushpavati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Shiksha U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Mishra,Dinesh Kumar Pandey,Madhu Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, and Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶7

Under challenge is the advertisement dated 30.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, and the selection process held in pursuance of the said advertisement.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an OBC candidate and had applied in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement. However, her application has not been considered as the petitioner is aged 50 years and the age as specified in the said advertisement was between 30-45 years, which was the age for the post of Principal.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Government Order dated 08.11.1977, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, specifically provides that with respect to an OBC candidate, he would be entitled for age relaxation of five years and as such the respondents have patently erred in not considering the application of the petitioner inasmuch as in case the aforesaid government order was applied by them then the petitioner's application would have been considered by granting her age relaxation over and above the age of 45 years as specified in the advertisement.

¶10

On the other hand, Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.2, states that the aforesaid government order pertains to the regular posts under the State Government while with respect to the impugned advertisement the same are contractual posts in the Kasturaba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya.

¶11

Sri Tripathi also indicates that in terms of the advertisement, it was only provided for a reservation to be extended as per the

¶12

relevant government orders and no age relaxation was admissible to any of the candidates.

¶13

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that the petitioner is aggrieved by the advertisement dated 30.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the age limit of 30-45 was fixed for the post of Principal in various institutions. Admittedly, the petitioner is overaged (aged around 50 years) and seeks the benefit of age relaxation for an OBC candidate in terms of the government order dated 08.11.1977.

¶14

Perusal of the advertisement would indicate that the said advertisement did not indicate anything about an age relaxation. Rather the age for various posts were specifically fixed . The advertisement only indicated about a reservation to be provided as per the relevant government orders.

¶15

Once the advertisement itself did not indicate for any age relaxation and the petitioner fully knowing this fact applied in pursuance thereof and her application has not been considered consequently it cannot be said that the respondents have erred in any manner in not entertaining her application which was beyond the age of 45 years as specified in the advertisement.

¶16

So far as the argument that the government order dated 08.11.1977 provides for age relaxation for an OBC candidate over and above the age fixed by a period of five years, the said argument is patently misconceived particularly considering the fact that once the advertisement itself did not stipulate any such condition consequently interference with the impugned advertisement on the basis of the government order dated 08.11.1977 which although not specified in the advertisement itself would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has already commenced and would also be a fraud on those persons who wanted to apply but finding that there is a particular age limit specified in the advertisement could not apply consequently this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned advertisement.

¶17

In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of District Collector and Chairman Viziangaram (Social Welfare) Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in 1990 3 SCC 655, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶18

"6. It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter

¶19

only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact."

¶20

Keeping in view the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 28.7.2025

¶22

A. Katiyar

¶23

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pushpavati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Shiksha U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpavati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Shiksha U.P. Lko. and Another

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

Ajai Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Secondary Edu. and Ors.

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 3 Others

Varsha Singh Vs Gen. Manager Human Resource Management Deptt. Indian Overseas Bank Chennai and 2 Others

Ram Nivas Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Civil Sectt. Lko and 3OTHERS

Dr. Ankit Gupta (Assistant Professor) Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Nirman Bhawan New Delhi and 7 Others

Amit Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy., Basic Edu. Anubhag 5 Lko. and 4 Others