The Allahabad High Court has issued a landmark ruling mandating that the eligibility of public officials for high-stakes appointments cannot be determined based solely on oral submissions made by government counsel. In a judgment delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, the court emphasized that when a legal challenge turns on disputed or unverified facts—particularly those affecting the rights of a third party—the court must insist on concrete evidence provided through formal counter-affidavits before reaching a decision

The controversy arose from a challenge filed by Ashok Kumar, an Executive Engineer in the Department of Town and Country Planning , against the government’s decision to grant an officiating charge for the position of Chief Town and Country Planner to a colleague, designated as respondent no. 4. The appellant argued that the officiating head failed to meet the essential academic qualifications stipulated under the Uttar Pradesh Town and Country Planning Service Rules of 1987 . Specifically, the rules require a degree or post-graduate diploma in Town and Country Planning, a standard that the appellant claimed neither he nor the appointed respondent truly satisfied, thereby rendering the appointment arbitrary and discriminatory.

In the initial round of litigation before a single judge , the court dismissed the challenge, relying primarily on an oral assertion made by the Additional Advocate General. The State had contended that the respondent possessed the requisite qualifications and that the appellant did not. The division bench , however, found this approach fundamentally flawed, noting that the single judge had effectively foreclosed any factual inquiry by accepting an unverified statement from the bar.

Addressing the procedural impropriety , the division bench observed, “Where the resolution of the controversy turns upon disputed or unverified facts, particularly facts going to the eligibility of a third party whose interest is directly affected by the decision, the Court ought ordinarily to have the benefit of a counter-affidavit before recording a finding of fact adverse to a party who has had no opportunity to place his version on record.”

Restoring Procedural Rigor in Administrative Appointments

The division bench held that the previous order had ignored the necessity of strict compliance with service rules . By allowing the appointment to proceed based on a verbal assurance, the lower court had circumvented the scrutiny required to ensure that public offices are occupied by individuals meeting the precise legal benchmarks defined by the state. The high court clarified that the sanctity of judicial findings rests on their anchorage to verified records rather than assertions accepted on trust.

The court further noted the dangers of applying inconsistent standards of eligibility. While the single judge had correctly identified that courts should not interpret service rules to read in equivalence where none exists—thereby barring the appellant’s plea for equivalence—the same rigor was missing in the evaluation of the respondent. The bench remarked, “In the considered view of this Court, it would be wholly incongruous for the very rigour applied to the appellant's qualification to be relaxed, in the same judgment, into an unverified oral acceptance where respondent no. 4's qualification was concerned.”

This ruling underscores the principle that the judicial process must act as a check on administrative discretion . By failing to call for a counter-affidavit, the writ court had failed to provide the appellant the opportunity to inspect or controvert the documents eventually produced by the state. The division bench stressed that such omissions inevitably lead to real prejudice, particularly in matters of promotion and career progression within government services.

Defining the Path Forward for Substantive Recruitment

While the court set aside the dismissal regarding the officiating charge, it preserved the direction for the government to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the substantive recruitment to the post of Senior Planner. This portion of the order remains binding, ensuring that the long-term recruitment process continues unaffected by the ongoing dispute over the interim officiating charge.

The division bench has directed the respondents to file comprehensive counter-affidavits within three weeks, after which the appellant will have one week to file a rejoinder . This window allows the parties to bring forward all relevant certificates, degrees, and correspondence—including the controversial clarifications issued by the All-India Council for Technical Education and the Institute of Town Planners, India —for the court to assess them against the 1987 Service Rules .

“All rights and contentions of the parties, including on the questions of qualification, equivalence, and the plea founded on the earlier conduct/stand of the State, are left open to be urged before the Hon’ble Single Judge ,” the court ordered. The bench has requested that the proceedings be completed expeditiously, ideally within two months, noting the appellant’s upcoming superannuation .

Until the matter is freshly adjudicated, the existing officiating arrangement will continue. However, the court explicitly stated that this continuation is an interim measure and will not confer any equity in favor of the current appointee. This serves as a safeguard to ensure that the final outcome of the writ petition is not preempted by the passage of time or the creation of vested interests through a temporary posting.

By mandating that the writ petition be restored to its original number for a fresh, merit-based consideration, the division bench has reaffirmed the necessity of transparency and evidentiary support in service-related disputes. The case serves as a reminder to both administrative authorities and lower courts that the strict language of service rules must be matched by equally strict adherence to procedural fairness . The judiciary’s role, in this context, is to ensure that even temporary staffing decisions conform to the established statutory framework, thereby protecting the integrity of the selection process for high-level technical positions in the Uttar Pradesh government.