Vikas vs State of U. P. - 2021 Supreme(All) 1562

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 1562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yashwant Varma, J.
Vikas and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Writ A. Nos. 656, 693, 758, 771, 801, 823, 836, 917, 925, 937, 942, 943, 944, 945, 969, 1006, 1029, 1271, 1357, 1523, 1548, 1550, 1568, 1598, 1604, 1658, 1776, 2310, 2666, 2670, 2690, 3999, 4028, 4159, 4542, 4840, 9558 of 2020 and 3353 of 2021
Decided On : 17-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Tarun Agrawal, Prashant Mishra, Yogendra Singh Bohra, Ram Pandey, Kaushal Kumar Ojha, Sharad Chand Rai, Krishna Mishra, Rajjan Singh Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav, Satyawan Yadav, Ziya Uddin, Chandra Prakash, Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Seemant Singh, Saurabh Kumar Tiwari, Atul Kumar, Jitendra Rana, Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava, Gautam, Manoj Kumar Singh, Mohd. Shamim, Parvesh Kumar Pandey, Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, Piyush Pandey, Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Adv., Ashok Kumar, Prabha Shanker Pandey, Abhishek Goswami, Shiv Pujan Bharti, Babu Lal Ram, Shashank Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Lavlesh Kumar, Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, Pusp Raj Singh, Pooja Devi, Anubhav Dwivedi, Satyendra Nath Tripathi, Brijesh Narayan Srivastava, M.N. Singh, Ram Bachan Yadav, Ankesh Kumar Dubey, Ravindra Kumar Tripathi, Ram Chandra Srivastava, R.P.S. Chauhan, Neeraj Shukla, Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Mannu Ram, Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Jayanti Vikram Singh and Satyendra Bhaskar
For the Respondent: F.A. Ansari, G.K. Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, Avneesh Tripathi, C.S.C, Greesh Kumar Malviya, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, M.N. Singh, Shailendra Srivastava, Rohit Pandey, Fuzail Ahmad Ansari and Kuldeep Singh Chauhan

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 16, 226 – Equality before Law – Power of High court to issue writs - Writ petitions challenge a selection process undertaken by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Commission for appointment of Assistant Review Officers and Review Officers in different departments of the State Government - Whether the qualifications possessed by the petitioners renders them eligible to participate in the selection process which restricted the zone of consideration to those who held either an O level certificate issued by NEILIT or any other qualification equivalent thereto - Whether a GO would have prospective effect or relate back to an earlier date is a question which would have to be decided on the basis of text and tenor of the respective orders – Held, Court also fails to find any merit in the submission of the petitioners that the Commission had no authority to examine the issue of equivalence. As noted above, it became imperative for the Commission to visit this issue in light of the numerous applications received by it from applicants claiming either parity with the O level or asserting that they held superior or higher qualifications. It becomes pertinent to observe that attempting to ascertain a claim of parity with the qualifications prescribed or a situation where a candidate claims that he holds a qualification better than that prescribed, is not the same as evolving a criterion for selection. It also cannot be equated with the selecting agency formulating the "basis for selection". The decision was dealing with a case where the selection committee proceeded to determine suitability based upon an assessment of character rolls. That decision is thus clearly distinguishable. In any case, both have recognised the right of the recruiting agency to rule on the question of equivalence - Writ petitions dismissed.

ORDER :

Yashwant Varma, J.

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal, and Prashant Mishra, learned counsels in Writ-A No. -656 of 2020 [Vikas And 80 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others], Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel in Writ-A No. -945 of 2020 [Jai Shankar Chaubey And 60 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others], Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel who appears in Writ-A No. - 693 of 2020 [Kavita Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others]. All other learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have adopted the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsels noticed above. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has addressed submissions for the State-respondents, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Avneesh Tripathi has been heard on behalf of the Commission while Sri M.D. Singh, 'Shekhar' and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsels assisted by Sri G.K. Malviya, have appeared for the impleaded parties.

A. INTRODUCTION

2. This batch of writ petitions challenge a selection process undertaken by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Commission for appointment of Assistant Review Officers and Review Officers in different departments of the State Government. Admittedly, all the writ petitioners had successfully cleared the written examination. They were, however, not permitted to participate in the typing test leading to the filing of the present writ petitions. The writ petitioners approached this Court stating that the respondents had not permitted them to participate further in the selection process on the ground that they did not possess the 'O' Level certificate as prescribed by NIELIT. The writ petitioners appearing in the lead matter being Writ A No. 656 of 2020 have classified the various petitioners as falling in the following groups: -

Group	Petitioners	Academic Qualification
Group 1	Petitioner Nos. 1 to 14	B. Tech. (IT)
Group 2	Petitioner Nos. 15 to 44	B. Tech. (CS)
Group 3	Petitioner Nos. 45 to 48	B.Sc. (CS)
Group 4	Petitioner Nos. 49 to 52	B.Sc. (CA)
Group 5	Petitioner Nos. 53	M.Sc. (CS)
Group 6	Petitioner Nos. 54-63	BCA
Group 7	Petitioner Nos. 64 to 71	MCA
Group 8	Petitioner Nos. 72 to 77	B.A./M.A. + “O” Level Course from Kanpur University
Group 9	Petitioner No. 78	Electronics & Communication Engg.
Group 10	Petitioner No. 79	Diploma in Computer Application from NIELIT
Group 11	Petitioner No. 80	Diploma in Computer Science
Group 12	Petitioner No. 81	PGDCA

3. Undisputedly, the rules which govern the appointment of Review Officers and Assistant Review Officers prescribed the following qualifications: -

(A) Bachelor's degree from a University established by law in India or a qualification recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto;

(B) "O" Level certificate awarded by the DOEACC Society or a qualification equivalent thereto;

4. All the writ petitioners contend that they hold degrees and diplomas which are either equivalent to an 'O' Level certificate or are liable to be viewed as a higher or superior qualification to that of an 'O' Level certificate. It was also their contention that in the previous recruitment exercises which had been undertaken, candidates holding qualifications identical to that of the petitioners, had been permitted to participate in the selection process and had also been appointed subsequently. In view of the aforesaid, it was contended that the exclusion of the petitioners was clearly arbitrary and illegal. When the leading writ petition came up for consideration before a learned Judge on 17 January 2020, rival submission

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(All) 1562

Cases Referred (9)