The court upheld that experience in non-Government entities does not qualify candidates for government positions as defined under applicable service rules.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Kunal Shah and Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Sri Saksham Srivastava, Sri Vipul Pandey, Sri Neelabh Srivastava, Kritika Sinha, Sri Sunil Kumar Shukla, Sri Rahul Mishra, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Sri Hashim Khan, Sri Tarun Agarwal Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prashant Mishra and Sri Anoop Baranwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjeev Singh, Learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Avneesh Tripathi and Sri Sanjay Kumar Om on behalf of respondent Commission.

2. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an Advertisement No.A-5/E-1/2024 dated 28.8.2024 for Uttar Pradesh University (Centralised) Service Assistant Registrar Examination-2024.

3. Petitioners in present bunch of writ petitions have applied in said Examination and are aggrieved that despite they have an experience of 7 years as required, still their respective candidature was rejected and respective appeals thereof were also rejected.

4. Applicable service Rules in present case is the Uttar Pradesh Sate University (Centralised) Service rules, 1975. Rule 13, of aforesaid Rules provides qualification for a post under Centralised Service, which is reproduced hereinafter:

“13. Qualifications - A candidate to any post under the Centralised Services must possess the requisite qualification as the Commission may prescribe with the approval of the State Government.”

5. Qualification for concerned post was notified through a Government

6. In the above referred background, following essential qualifications were prescribed after approval of State Government with certain modifications:

7. Petitioners before this Court have claimed that they have working experience of 7 years either in a Government Office or in an Office of University, whereas respondents have come up with a case that they are bound by a clarification issued by the State subsequently on

8. Now the Court proceeds to consider case of each petitioners:

(a) Writ No. 1732 of 2026.

In the present case, petitioner is working as ‘Cabin Crew’ in Indian Air Lines Ltd. and later on she was promoted as ‘Senior Associate’ in the Finance Department at same place having an experience of more than 17 years.

It may be a case of petitioner that Indian Air Lines Ltd., is a State instrumentality or a Public Sector Undertaking and her service is governed by Rules and Regulations duly approved by the Central Government, but still in strict interpretation, it is not a Government Office under ‘State or Union’. The employer is at liberty to give a restricted interpretation of word ‘Government Office’ as per the need of the post. The Court in writ Jurisdiction cannot force the State to expand the scope of words ‘Government Office’. An employee would be treated to be an employee of Government Office only if his employment is under direct control of State or Union Government, therefore, her claim was rightly rejected. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

(b) Writ No.1665 of 2026

In the present case, petitioner is working in Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, a Government Company. In this case also, a view taken by this Court in above mentioned Writ Petition No.1732 of 2026 is squarely applicable, therefore, his claim was rightly rejected. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

(c) Writ Nos.1764 of 2026 and 2201 of 2026

The above both writ petitions are filed by one petitioner, who is working in Airports Authority of India and as submitted by learned counsel for respondents that his claim will be reconsidered as Airports Authority of India is an Office of Central Government, theref