SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 714

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Dr. Albina – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondent
Writ - A No. 835 of 2022
Decided On : 08-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Karrar Husain, Kshitij Shailendra (Elevated), Syed Fahim Ahmed Counsel
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Gautam Baghel, M.N. Singh, Nipun Singh

Candidates participating in a selection process without prior protest are estopped from challenging the selection criteria after an unfavourable outcome. Furthermore, state recruitment rules formulated under constitutional authority prevail over recommendatory central council guidelines concerning educational qualifications for public service posts.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment process - Estoppel - A candidate who participates in a selection process without protest is precluded from challenging the validity of the advertisement or the selection procedure after an unfavourable result. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

(B) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Constitutional law - Rules framed under the proviso to the Constitution regarding state employment hold primacy over recommendatory regulations issued by national councils. Conflict between state recruitment rules and central guidelines is resolved in favour of the state-framed rules. (Paras 25, 26)

(C) Service Law - Selection criteria - Preferential qualification - Possession of a higher or preferential qualification does not confer an automatic right to appointment. Such criteria are only considered as a tie-breaker factor when candidates have otherwise identical performance marks in the merit assessment. (Paras 21, 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an advertisement for a teaching position in a government institution, arguing that the educational qualifications were outdated and inconsistent with newer federal regulations. The petitioner had applied, participated in the selection process, and appeared for an interview without raising any initial objection. Only after the declaration of the final merit list and the selection of another candidate did the petitioner initiate legal proceedings to quash the recruitment process.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner was fully aware of the recruitment criteria during the application and selection phases. By electing to participate without protest, the petitioner waived the right to challenge the advertisement once unsuccessful. Furthermore, the court held that state-level recruitment rules governing public services prevail over any recommendatory guidelines issued by central bodies, and preferential qualifications do not grant a superior claim to appointment status.

Issues: Whether a candidate who has undergone a selection process can challenge the validity of the advertisement after being unsuccessful, and whether state-enacted recruitment rules are subordinate to federal council regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: Participation in a selection process without protest constitutes a waiver of the right to contest the procedural validity of that process. Additionally, rules governing public service recruitment framed by state authorities under constitutional powers are mandatory, whereas guidelines from central professional councils remain recommendatory and cannot override the state-mandated qualifications.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and recruitment advertisement eligibility conditions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention regarding conflict between state rules of 1990 and central act of 1970. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. estoppel prevents candidates from challenging advertisement after unsuccessful participation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. preferential qualification is not a right to mandatory selection. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. state service rules under article 309 override recommendatory central regulations. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. dismissal of petition and validation of selection process recommendations. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Syed Fahim Ahmed for the petitioner, Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3, Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Utkarsh Singh holding brief of Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. The instant petition has been initially filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order/recommendation dated 19.01.2022, whereby the U.P. Public Service Commission has recommended the name of respondent no. 4 for appointment to the post of Reader/Jaharat in Government Unani Medical Colleges and further, seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as the Reader/Jarahat (Surgical) being an eligible candidate, as she is having the post-graduate degree, which was a preferential qualification. Later, by way of an amendment, the petitioner has challenged the advertisement dated 24.09.2019, whereby the said post of Reader/Jarahat under U.P. AYUSH (Unani Department) was advertised as Item No. VIII, and also seeks a Writ of Quo Warranto against respondent no. 4, and also to the respondents not to permit respondent no. 4 to hold the post of Lecturer, Jarahat Department of the State Takmeel-Ut-Tib College & Hospital, Lucknow.

3. The briefly stated facts of the case are that on the requisition of the State Government, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj issued an Advertisement No. 2 of 2019-20, dated 24.09.2019, whereby one post of Reader/Jarahat in General Category was advertised to be filled-up on the basis of the conditions prescribed in the advertisement. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner herein has applied to the post, participated in the selection process and was also interviewed. However, she could not be selected and the respondent no. 1 was selected for the aforesaid post of Reader/Jarahat and her name was recommended vide impugned order dated 19.01.2022 by the U.P. Public Service Commission for appointment. The said advertisement prescribed the following eligibility conditions:-

(viil) 01 (One) post of Reader Jarahat in Government Unani Medical Colleges of the State, (General recruitment), Deptt. No. S- 11/16, Nature of Post. Gazetted & Temporary, Reservation Unreserved, Pay Band- Rs. 15600-39100/-, Grade Pay 6600/- level-11 (According to 7th Pay Commission), Educational qualification Essential: (1) Five years degree in unani from a University established by law or five years degree from the Board of Indian medicine, Uttar Pradesh or any other state Board or faculty which is registrable Under the united Provinces Indian medicine Act, 1939. (2) Seven years teaching experience of the subject (Five years for a post-Graduate) In a recognized institution. (3) Working Knowledge of Hindi, English and Urdu or Arabic or Persian. Preferential: (1) Post--Graduate qualification from a recognized institution. (2) Research work andpublication of original papers and books. Preferential Qualification:-A candidate who has:- (i) Served in the Territorial Army for a minimum period of two years. or (ii) Obtain a "B" Certificate of National Cadet Corps, shall other things being equal, be given preference in the matter of direct recruitment. Age:-Minimum 28 years, maximum 45

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top