Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3519

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Dr. Padmakar Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondents
Writ - A No. - 16997 of 2025
Decided On : 28-11-2025

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Aman Arya, Udayan Nandan
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Shesh Kumar Srivastava

Promotion cannot be void due to allegations against a foundational Government Order unless fraud is proven; equal treatment under the law is mandatory.

Headnote:(A) U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 - Promotion procedures; Government Orders dated 31.12.2003 and 17.09.2019 - Consideration for promotion from Sales Officer to Director (Publication) - The petitioner was promoted based on a challenged Government Order deemed forged; however, the promotion was not annulled, allowing the petitioner to continue until a final decision is made. (Paras 2, 6, 30)

(B) Constitutional Law - Violation of Article 14 - Discrimination in retirement age determination; the court ruled that denying the promotion benefits based on a past Government Order contravenes principles of fairness and equality. (Paras 37, 38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Sales Officer and subsequently promoted to Director (Publication) based on a disputed Government Order; promotion was challenged post-factual discovery of alleged forgery. (Paras 1, 3, 5)

Findings of Court:
The promotion cannot be disputed retrospectively due to the lack of fraud or fault on the part of the petitioner, and the earlier Government Orders were considered to have future application. (Paras 30, 36)

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the promotion due to allegations of forgery and the applicable retirement age for the position.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that promotions based on non-fraudulent processes remain valid, and all similarly situated individuals should receive equal treatment regarding retirement age, confirming the necessary adjustment for the petitioner. (Paras 34, 38)

Result: Petition granted; decision on retirement age rectified to 62 years.

Table of Content
1. promotion based on a government order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioner's claim to retain position pending litigation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12)
3. legal definitions and government orders related to age and promotion. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. consequences of the cancellation of the government order. (Para 20 , 22 , 23 , 33)
5. ruling on age of retirement for the petitioner. (Para 36 , 38)

JUDGMENT

HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. In present writ petitions it is not under much dispute that petitioner was initially appointed as a Sales Officer vide order dated 18.08.1998 by Registrar, Sampoornanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as “University”).

2. The State of U.P. has issued a Government Order dated 31.12.2003 to Registrar of University that Governor has permitted by Government Order dated 18.09.1998 that a post of Director (Publication) under the Publication Department of University could be filled in by promotion from the post of Sales Officer (Vikray Adhikari). Scanned copy of Government Order dated 31.12.2003 is pasted hereinafter as well as its relevant part is also reproduced hereinafter:

3. Aforesaid order is the bone of contention, since in the year 2019 the State Government has communicated a letter dated 17.09.2019 addressed to Registrar of University that aforesaid Government Order was a forged order and it was accordingly cancelled. This order is subject matter of challenge in Writ-A No. 16669 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “First Petition”).

4. It is also not under much dispute that on basis of aforesaid Government Order dated 31.12.2003, earlier the Executive Council of University took a decision dated 14.08.2012 adopting the aforesaid Government Order that Sales Officer can be considered for promotion on the post of Director (Publication).

5. Aforesaid exercise of promotion was undertaken on basis of some writ petitions filed before this Court at the behest of petitioner also since University has proposed to fill the said post by direct recruitment, which was stalled by this Court. Accordingly petitioner was promoted on the post of Director (Publication) vide an order dated 23.08.2012 issued by Registrar of University.

6. It would be relevant to mention here that though Government Order dated 31.12.2003 is set aside subsequently vide Government Order dated 17.09.2019 still no order has been passed to quash the aforesaid order of promotion dated 23.08.2012 which was essentially based on Government Order dated 31.12.2003. The decision of the University dated 14.08.2012 is also not withdrawn and outcome of proposed FIR is also not on record.

7. In aforesaid circumstances, First Petition was filed challenging Government Order dated 17.09.2019 and for reference contents thereof are reproduced hereinafter:

8. In First Petition an order was passed on 23.10.2019 whereby petitioner was allowed to work on the post of Director (Publication) but it was directed that his continuance shall be subject to final decision of writ petition. Said order is reproduced hereinafter:

“By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court raising a grievance that pursuant to declaration of Government Order dated 31st December, 2003 being forged document the petitioner's services will be affected as the petitioner was given promotion on the post of Director Publication on the basis of the aforesaid Government Order. The petitioner was holding the post of Sales Officer in Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi.

It has been stated at the Bar that the post of Director Publication was initially occupied by teaching staff but after this Government Order dated 31.12.2003 the post was made promotional from amongst the Sales Officers in the University. Prior to the petitioner one Dr. Harish Chandra Mani Tripathi was promoted from the post of Sales Officer to the post of Director Publication and after his retirement, the petitioner set up a claim for promotion, which was n