JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR, J.

1. The aforesaid two appeals are against the common judgment dated 10.03.2021, which is impugned in both the appeals, thus, the appeals are being decided by a common judgment.

2. There is a delay in filing of the present special appeals.

Reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed along with application for condonation of delay are found to be satisfactory, hence, the delay in filing the special appeals is condoned and the appeal are heard on merit.

3. The private respondents in the present appeals had preferred writ petitions for non consideration of their candidature in the interview for appointment on the post of Cane Supervisor in pursuance of the advertisement dated 06.10.2016 for the reason that they were not in possession of certificate of Course on Computer Concepts (hereinafter referred to as, the Certificate of CCC) issued by the DOEACC Society.

4. The learned counsel for the private respondents/petitioners in the present appeals has submitted that they were in possession of degrees in which, computer course was one of the subjects, thus, they were eligible for the appointment on the post of Cane Supervisor in view of the Government Order dated 06.05.2016 and 23.09.2016, as clarified subsequently by the order dated 05.07.2018.

5. In support of the submissions that these Government orders or the Executive orders are applicable upon the private respondents/petitioners, they relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik and Others vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2008) 4 SCC 171 and Union of India vs. K.P. Joseph and Others, (1973) 1 SCC 194.

6. The aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are on the issue of filling up the gaps. In this case, there is no gap in Rule 9 (ii) of Rules, 2015 which is required to be filled up by any government order or instructions, thus, the judgment relied are not applicable in this case.

7. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions in reference to the Government Orders, which have relaxed the qualifications otherwise provided under the Statutory provisions taking into consideration that the intention of the legislature/employer in providing requirement of the certificate of CCC for the said post is to recruit the candidates suitable to work efficiently in the changing work environment of office. In the judgment impugned, it has been specifically been mentioned that the private respondents did not possess the certificate of CCC but they were in possession of equivalent qualification issued by other recognized institutions which makes them suitable to fulfill the requirement of employer for the post in question.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State-appellant has submitted that as per the Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Ganna Paryaveshak (Group III) Service Rules, 2015 (Second Amendment) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2015), the certificate of CCC awarded by the DOEACC Society is the academic qualification for the purpose of consideration for appointment on the post of Cane Supervisor. For convenience, the Rule 9 of the Rules of 2015 is being quoted hereunder:-

Substitution of Rule 9: