Shiv Adhar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Personnel (Appointment Deptt.) Lko. and 2 Others

1. Heard Mr. Chandan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite
party no.1 and Mr. R. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel
for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

¶12

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on
record.

¶13

3. Earlier, on 13.02.2026 following order had been
passed:-

¶14

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned
State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. R.
K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for opposite party
Nos.2 & 3.

¶15

2. Petition has been filed challenging
cancellation of petitioner's candidature for the
post of Assistant Registrar sought to be
recruited by means of advertisement dated
14.01.2026. Also under challenge is order dated
02.02.2026 rejecting petitioner's representation.

¶16

WRIA No. 1599 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

Final result has also been challenged. Petition
also seeks a direction to opposite parties to
treat petitioner as eligible in terms of Clause
8(B) of the advertisement and for permission to
participate in the interview process.

¶19

3. It has been submitted that the aforesaid
advertisement has clearly prescribed the
educational qualification in paragraph - 8(B)
that the candidates must possess the working
experience of minimum of 7 years in any
Government office or office of University with
which the knowledge of Hindi and English drafting
and Accounts Rules are essential.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has thereafter
adverted to the Experience Certificate issued by
Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur
dated 22.08.2025 to submit that such a
qualification has been certified as being
possessed by the petitioner and therefore
cancellation of petitioner's candidature is
against the provisions of advertisement itself.

¶21

5. Learned counsel for opposite parties are granted ten days' time to obtain written instructions or to file short counter affidavit with regard to aforesaid submissions.

¶22

6. List this case on 25.02.2026, as fresh."

¶23

4. Elaborating upon his submission, learned counsel
for petitioner submits that the only condition
require in the advertisement as an educational
qualification was that the candidatures must posses
the working experience of minimum seven years in
any Government Office or Office of University with
which the knowledge of Hindi and English drafting

¶24

WRIA No. 1599 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

and Accounts Rule are essential. It is submitted
that since petitioner is admittedly employee in the
Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, he is
covered by the aforesaid qualification indicated in
Clause 8 (B) of the aforesaid Advertisement.

¶27

5. Mr. R. K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for
opposite parties no.2 & 3 on the basis of counter
affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by
learned counsel for petitioner with the submission
that the grievance of petitioner alongwith others
was placed before an Expert Committee which in its
report indicated that since petitioner was
appointed under Self Finance Scheme of the
University, he was not considered to be in regular
Government Servant and therefore his candidature
has been rejected.

¶28

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by
learned counsel for parties and perusal of material
on record, particularly the counter affidavit, it
is thus evident that petitioner's candidature has
been rejected only on the ground that he was
appointed under the Self Finance Scheme in the
Office of the University and was therefore not
considered to be a regular employee.

¶29

7. However for the aforesaid purpose, it would be
necessary to advert to Clause 8 of the
Advertisement which is as follows:-

¶30

" 8. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION:- Essential:

¶31

(A) The candidates must possess the degree

¶32

of Graduation from any recognized University
or Equivalent qualification. Good knowledge

¶33

of Hindi is essential. (B) The candidates
must possess the working experience of
minimum 07 years in any Govt. office or

¶34

WRIA No. 1599 of 2026

¶35

4

¶36

office of University with which the
knowledge of Hindi and English drafting and
Accounts Rules are essential."

¶37

8. From a perusal of the aforesaid educational
qualification required, it thus transpires that
there is no distinction drawn in the Advertisement
with regard to employment of a candidate being a
regular or under the Self Finance Scheme.

¶38

9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

¶39

Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep
Shriram Warade & Ors.;(2019)6 S.C.C. 362 : 2019
S.C.C OnLine SC 652 has already held that the terms
and conditions indicated in the Advertisement are
to be followed as they are without any deviation
from the same since they are sacrosanct. The
relevant paragraph is as follows:

¶40

"9. The essential qualifications for
appointment to a post are for the employer
to decide. The employer may prescribe
additional or desirable qualifications,
including any grant of preference. It is the
employer who is best suited to decide the
requirements a candidate must possess

¶41

according to the needs of the employer and
the nature of work. The court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility, much
less can it delve into the issue with regard
to desirable qualifications being on a par
with the essential eligibility by an
interpretive re-writing of the
advertisement. Questions of equivalence will
also fall outside the domain of judicial
review. If the language of the advertisement
and the rules are clear, the court cannot

¶42

WRIA No. 1599 of 2026

¶43

5

¶44

sit in judgment over the same. If there is
an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is
contrary to any rules or law the matter has
to go back to the appointing authority after
appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance
with law. In no case can the court, in the
garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of
the appointing authority to decide what is
best for the employer and interpret the
conditions of the advertisement contrary to
the plain language of the same."

¶45

10. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgment in
the present facts and circumstances, it is thus
evident that there being no distinction drawn in
the Advertisement between regular employment in the
office of University or under the Self Finance
Scheme, no such words can be deemed to be inserted
in the Advertisement.

¶46

11. In view thereof, since petitioner satisfies the
educational qualification indicated in paragraph
8(B) of the Advertisement, it was incumbent upon
the opposite parties to have considered his
candidature.

¶47

12. Since the selection process still ongoing
without any interview having been held, as
disclosed by learned counsel for answering opposite
parties, the concerned authorities being the
opposite parties no.2 & 3 are directed to consider
candidature of petitioner for recruitment on the
post of Assistant Registrar in pursuance of
Advertisement dated 28.08.2024.

¶48

13. The impugned order of rejection dated 14.01.2026 and the appellate order dated 02.02.2026 to the extent of rejection of petitioner's

¶49

6

¶50

WRIA No. 1599 of 2026

¶51

candidature are hereby quashed by issuance of a
Writ in the nature of Certiorari.

¶52

14. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is
allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶53

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶54

March 10, 2026

¶55

Subodh/-

¶56

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

Shiv Adhar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Personnel (Appointment Deptt.) Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Adhar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Personnel (Appointment Deptt.) 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Motilal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Saran Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Gauri Shankar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Kaustubh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Law and Legal Remembrancer and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Mishra and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Head Constable , PNO-112465067, Hakim Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others