Dismissed¶18

Divyanshi Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Appointment Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2026WRIA/3263/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UPPSC general recruitment Advertisement No. A-1/E-1/2025; Food Safety Officer; cancellation of candidature; requisite educational qualification; Bachelor of Arts Political Science; preliminary examination success confined to one post; vested right to appear in mains examination; appeal against cancellation rejected; writ petition dismissed; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Karunesh Singh Pawar; R.K. Upadhyaya; paragraph 11 of advertisement dated 20.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner did not possess the requisite educational qualification for the post of Food Safety Officer, and her candidature was therefore rightly rejected/cancelled by the Commission in terms of paragraph 11 of the original advertisement dated 20.02.2025. ¶17

Divyanshi Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Appointment Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3263 of 2026

¶3

Divyanshi Gupta

¶4

Versus		.	....Petit	ioner(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Lko. And Another		....	.Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepti Kumar	Gupta,	Rakesh	Devi	Prasad
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., (R.K.U	Raj padhyaya)	Kumar	Up	adhyaya

¶5

Court No. - 18

¶6

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K.Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj.

¶8

Vide order dated 25.03.2026, this Court passed the following order:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Prayagraj.

¶10

It has been submitted that the U.P. Public Service Commission issued a notification for general recruitment for vacancies to various posts vide Advertisement No.A-1/E-1/2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the preliminary examination, the petitioner was declared successful for appearing in the main examination in general, and that his clearance in the prelims was not confined to any specific post. However, the respondents, vide Annexure No. 2, have cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on unfounded grounds, and the appeal preferred against the same has also been rejected by a cryptic order.

¶11

Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Commission, prays for and is granted a day's time to seek written instructions in this regard. He shall obtain specific instructions as to whether the petitioner was declared successful in the prelims for appearing only against the post of Food Safety Officer or whether he was declared successful to appear for other posts as well.

¶12

Put up tomorrow, i.e. 26.03.2026, as fresh at 02:15 PM."

¶13

Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the Commission, has provided written instructions. A perusal thereof, particularly paragraph 5,

¶14

WRIA No. 3263 of 2026

¶15

¶16

shows that the petitioner was declared successful in the preliminary examination only for the post of Food Safety Officer. Apart from the said post, the petitioner was not declared successful for any other post. The petitioner possesses a Bachelor of Arts degree with Political Science, which is not the requisite educational qualification prescribed for the post of Food Safety Officer, thus, her candidature has been cancelled by the Commission in terms of paragraph 11 of the original advertisement dated 20.02.2025, a copy of the same has also been brought on record along with the written instructions.

¶17

In view of the above and considering the fact that the petitioner was declared successful in the preliminary examination, on the basis of the online application form, only for the post of Food Safety Officer and did not possess the requisite qualification for the said post, her candidature has rightly been rejected. She was not declared successful in the preliminary examination for any other post, and thus, no vested right accrues to her to claim eligibility or to seek permission to appear in the mains examination for any other post.

¶18

Petition, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

March 26, 2026 Vinay/-

¶20

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶21

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

Divyanshi Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Appointment Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divyanshi Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Appointment Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hari Nath Mishra vs U.O.I. Ministry of Railways Thru. Secy. Railway Board New Delhi and 2 Others

Dinesh Pal Singh Gaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Society Rashtriya Udyog Ashram Higher School Thru. Manager/Secy. Rajendra Prasad Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Abhishek Kumar and 15 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Chief Secy. Lko. and 6 Others

Babu Lal Ram, Retd. Asst. Sub Ins. / Railway Pro. Force Lko. vs Union of India Ministry of Railways Thru. Secy. Railway Board New Delhi and 2 Others

Rajat Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development , Civil Secretariat , Lucknow and 1 Other