# Aakash Verma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 201
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-26
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 20385 of 2019
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aakash-verma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46914
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A. Service law - Police recruitment -
Assistant Sub-Inspector - Qualification -
Certificate of 'O' level issued by DOEACC
Society
-
Non-possession
thereof
-
Rejection of candidature - Validity -
Classification between certificate issued
by DOEACC society and issued by other
university - Reasonableness - 'O' level
certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT is a
foundation course in Computer - Held,
insistence
on
allowing
only
such
candidates to be appointed who have
obtained
training
from
a
particular
institute give rise to the institutional
exclusivity having no reasonable basis for
classification
between
the
certificates
issued by DOEACC/NIELIT and other St.
established universities - Candidature of a
person cannot be rejected solely on the
ground that he or she does not possess 'O'
level
certificate
issued
by
DOEACC/NIELIT. (Para 37 and 39)

B. Service law - Police recruitment -
Qualification - B.Tech (C.S.), B.Sc.(C.S.),
B.C.A. include the foundational course in
Computer as well - It's syllabus also cover
the syllabus of 'O' level certificate - Same
line of progression - Held, if a candidate
possesses a basic qualification/ degree
like B.Tech (C.S.), B.Sc.(C.S.), B.C.A.,
which includes the foundational course in
Computer,
such
graduation
degrees/diplomas of the candidates, being
a 3 or 4 year degree/diploma courses,
shall presuppose the acquisition of one
year 'O' Level Course - It can be said that
candidates possessing such a nature of
basic educational qualification degree are
well versed with the syllabus of 'O' level
course. (Para 44, 45 and 46)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,926 of 54,709. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39926 for what follows._

3 All. Aakash Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
201
date it accrued up to the date of its actual
payment. The petitioner shall be paid
regular pension as and when the same falls
due.

51. It is further directed that if this
order is not complied with within stipulated
time, the petitioner shall be entitled for the
interest @ 12% on the aforesaid dues.

52. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A201
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Service Single No. 20385 of 2019
connected with
Service Single No. 20505 of 2020
and
Service Single No. 24584 of 2019
and
Service Single No. 20251 of 2019

Aakash Verma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Laltaprasad Misra, Prafulla Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, Himanshu Raghave

A. Service law - Police recruitment -
Assistant Sub-Inspector - Qualification -
Certificate of 'O' level issued by DOEACC
Society
-
Non-possession
thereof
-
Rejection of candidature - Validity -
Classification between certificate issued
by DOEACC society and issued by other
university - Reasonableness - 'O' level
certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT is a
foundation course in Computer - Held,
insistence
on
allowing
only
such
candidates to be appointed who have
obtained
training
from
a
particular
institute give rise to the institutional
exclusivity having no reasonable basis for
classification
between
the
certificates
issued by DOEACC/NIELIT and other St.
established universities - Candidature of a
person cannot be rejected solely on the
ground that he or she does not possess 'O'
level
certificate
issued
by
DOEACC/NIELIT. (Para 37 and 39)

B. Service law - Police recruitment -
Qualification - B.Tech (C.S.), B.Sc.(C.S.),
B.C.A. include the foundational course in
Computer as well - It's syllabus also cover
the syllabus of 'O' level certificate - Same
line of progression - Held, if a candidate
possesses a basic qualification/ degree
like B.Tech (C.S.), B.Sc.(C.S.), B.C.A.,
which includes the foundational course in
Computer,
such
graduation
degrees/diplomas of the candidates, being
a 3 or 4 year degree/diploma courses,
shall presuppose the acquisition of one
year 'O' Level Course - It can be said that
candidates possessing such a nature of
basic educational qualification degree are
well versed with the syllabus of 'O' level
course. (Para 44, 45 and 46)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Abha Tripathi & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
(2016) 6 ALL LJ 66

2. Anand Yadav & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2020 SCC Online SC 823

3. St. of Uttrak. & ors. Vs Deep Chandra Tiwari
& ors.; 2013 SCC Online SC 1141

4. Writ - A No. 24273 of 2018; Deepak Singh &
ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 23.07.2019

5. Zahoor Ahmed Rather & ors. Vs Shekh Imtiaz
Ahmed & ors.; (2019) 2 SCC 404,

6. Ganesh Kuwarbi & ors. Vs St. of Uttarak. &
anr.; 2014 SCC OnLine Utt 1917
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. B.L. Asawa Vs St. of Raj. & ors.; (1982) 2
SCC 55

8. Sadhna Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2011 (5)
ADJ 54

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

1. Since common questions are
involved in all the above-mentioned writ
petitions, they are being decided together.

2. Mainly, the following two prayers
have been made in all the writ petitions :-

(i) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing
Uttar
Pradesh
Service
Recruitment and Promotion Board to do the
document verification of the petitioners by
treating them as qualified and eligible and
the petitioners be also subjected to further
process of recruitment as contemplated
under Rule 17 of Uttar Pradesh Police
Ministerial,
Accounts,
Confidential
Assistant
Cadres
Service
(First
Amendment) Rules, 2016.

(ii) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to consider
candidature
of
the
petitioners
for
appointment on the post of ASI, while
treating the degrees possessed by the
petitioner as equivalent to the 'O' level
certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.

3. Vide order dated 23.09.2019
passed in Writ Petition No.20385 (SS) of
2019, Writ Petition No.20251 (SS) of
2019 & Writ Petition No.24584 (SS) of
2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court
had
directed
that
if
any
appointment is made during pendency of
the writ petitions, the same shall be
subject to final outcome of writ petitions
and this fact shall be mentioned in every
appointment letter, if issued, during
pendency of the writ petitions.

4. For proper adjudication, facts of
Writ Petition No.20385 (SS) of 2019 are
being taken up.

5. Brief facts of the case are as
follows :

(i) The respondent no.2/U.P.
Police Recruitment and Promotion Board
issued
an
Advertisement
dated
26.12.2016 inviting applications from the
male candidates for making recruitment
on the 136 posts of Sub-Inspector
(Confidential), 303 posts of Assistant
Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) and 170 posts
of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Accounts) i.e.
total 609 posts. As per advertisement,
date of online registration for filling up
the aforesaid posts was from 12.01.2017
to 11.02.2017. Last date of depositing the
application fee was 14.02.2017 and last
date of final submission of application
form was 18.02.2017. The petitioners
submitted their online application for
consideration of their candidature for
appointment on the aforesaid posts as per
the advertisement.

(ii) As per the advertisement,
the following were essential educational
qualification:

"(i) Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police (Ministerial):

(a) Bachelor Degree from a
University established by law in India or
equivalent qualification recognised by the
Government.

(b) Hindi typing with speed of at
least 25 words per minute and English
Typing with speed of at least 30 words per
minute (Uni-code based using in-script-key
3 All. Aakash Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
203
board or as prescribed by the Head of
Department).

(c)Certificate of 'O' level in
Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society.

(ii) Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police (Accounts):

(a)
Bachelor
Degree
in
Commerce or Post-Graduate Diploma in
Accountancy
from
an
University
established by law in India or equivalent
qualification
recognised
by
the
Government.

(b) Hindi Typing (Uni-code based
using in-script-key board or as prescribed
by the Head of Department) with speed of
at least 15 words per minute.
(c) Certificate of 'O' level in Computer from
DOEACC/NIELIT Society.

(iii) Sub-Inspector of Police
(Confidential):

(a) Bachelor Degree from a
University established by law in India or
equivalent qualification recognised by the
Government.

(b) Hindi Typing with speed of at
least 25 words per minute and English
Typing with speed of at least 30 words per
minute (Uni-code based using in-script-key
board or as prescribed by the Head of
Department).

(c) Hindi shorthand dictation with
a speed of minimum 80 words per minute.

(d) Certificate of 'O' level in
Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society."

(iii) As per the advertisement,
preferential qualifications for applying the
aforesaid
posts
were:
(a)
Higher
certification from DOEACC/NIELIT (b)
Graduation in law from any institute or
college
or
university
recognised
by
University Grants Commission (UGC) (c)
has served in the Territorial Army for at
least two years (d) possess 'B' Certificate of
National Cadet Corps.

(iv) Clause 4 of Advertisement
dated 26.12.2016 provides that recruitment
on the aforesaid posts shall be made under
U.P.
Police
Ministerial,
Accounts,
Confidential Assistant Cadre Service (First
Amendment) Rules,
2016
(hereinafter
referred as 'Rules of 2016').

(v)
The
online
written
examination was held on 22.12.2018 and
thereafter, the answer key was issued,
which was available on the official website
of respondent no.2 w.e.f. 03.01.2019 to
06.01.2019. Result of the said examination
was declared by respondent no.2 on
08.03.2019 and all the petitioners herein
were declared successful in the said
examination.

(vi) The respondent no.2 issued
admit card to the petitioners for appearing
in the next stage of selection process i.e. for
verification/scrutiny of documents and
physical standard test as per notice dated
03.07.2019 under Rule 17 of 2016 Rules.
The petitioners herein presented themselves
alongwith
relevant
documents
for
verification of documents and for physical
standard test as per schedule but they were
orally informed that their candidature is
being rejected on the ground that they do
not possess the 'O' level certificate issued
by DOEACC/NIELIT and the signatures of
the
petitioners
were
taken
on
the
application form wherein an endorsement
was made by respondent no.2 that their
candidature is being cancelled due to nonsubmission of 'O' level certificate issued by
DOEACC/NIELIT. The scrutiny held w.e.f.
11.07.2019 to 14.07.2019.

(vii)
The
respondent
no.2
declared the date of holding the Computer
Tying Test and Stenography examination
vide
notice
dated
22.07.2019
and
29.07.2019 but the petitioners were not
invited for the said tests.
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(viii) There is no dispute with
regard to possessing the qualification of
Bachelor Degree from an University
established by law in India or equivalent
qualification
recognised
by
the
Government. The dispute in the instant writ
petitions is only confined to the certificate
of 'O' level issued by DOEACC/NIELIT
because of which the petitioners have been
non-suited on the ground that they do not
possess certificate of 'O' level issued by
DOEACC/NIELIT.

6. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for
the petitioners has submitted that crux of
the matter in the present writ petitions is
that the petitioners have been non-suited on
the ground that they do not possess 'O' level
certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT,
whereas the petitioners were having higher
degree or diploma in computer course
issued by institutes duly recognized and
affiliated by the Board of Technical
Education/University/UGC/AICTE
or
IGNOU. It is further submitted that the
course of 'O' level certificate mentioned in
the advertisement is one year duration
course and is a foundational course,
whereas the duration of courses done by the
petitioners vary from one year to four year
and the syllabus of 'O' level course is
included in the syllabus of courses done by
the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners
also possess 'O' level certificate.

7. In support of the aforesaid
argument, Dr. Mishra, has invited attention
of the Court towards the syllabus of 'O'
level course and the syllabus of M.C.A.,
B.Tech (C.S.), B.Sc. (C.S.) which are
possessed by the petitioners and submitted
that in the courses done by the petitioners,
'O' level course is included, therefore, the
petitioners
possess
the
requisite
qualification
for
being
selected
and
appointed on the post for which they had
applied.

8. Dr. Mishra has submitted that
respondent
no.2
also
issued
an
advertisement in the year 2013 for
recruitment on the post of Computer
Operator Grade - A and the following was
the essential educational qualification as
mentioned in the advertisement :-

"(i)
Must
have
passed
the
Intermediate Examination with Physics and
Mathematics as subjects from recognised
Board.

And

Must have passed 'O' level
examination in Computer from DOEACC
of
the
Government
of
India
or
a
qualification recognised by the Government
as equivalent thereto.

(ii)
Must
have
obtained
a
Diploma
in
Computer
Engineering,
Information Technology or Electronics
Engineering from the Board of Technical
Education,
Uttar
Pradesh
or
a
qualification recognised by the Government
as equivalent thereto."

9. In the aforesaid advertisement, a
dispute was raised by the candidates
possessing higher degrees who were not
allowed to appear in the document
verification
and
on
the
controversy,
respondent no.2 constituted a Committee
comprising Sri D.C. Yadav, Pro. Vice
Chancellor/Pro.
Computer
Science,
U.P.T.U., Lucknow; Dr. Raghuraj Singh,
Prof. and Head of Department of Computer
Science, H.B.T.I., Kanpur, U.P.; and Shri
Asraf
Ali,
Principal
Government
Polytechnic
Aadampur,
Gonda
for
considering the equivalence of technical
qualification
with
respect
to
the
qualification acquired by a candidate. The
3 All. Aakash Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
205
committee submitted its report dated
03.03.2014 and 04.09.2013, wherein the
higher degrees and diplomas as possessed
by the petitioners were declared as
equivalent and above to 'O' level certificate
issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.

10. Learned counsel has submitted
that the degrees and diplomas required by
the petitioners are covered under the
Committee reports dated 03.03.2014 and
04.09.2013 under Serial Nos.12 and 17, as
such, they are legally entitled for getting
their documents verified and also to appear
in the Physical Standard Test and other
process of selection as contemplated under
Rule 17 of 2016 Rules. It is submitted that,
therefore, the educational qualification as
mentioned in the advertisement i.e. 'O' level
certificate is a part of syllabus of degrees
and diplomas possessed by the petitioners,
thus, the petitioners are also eligible as per
advertisement dated 26.12.2016.

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted that rejection of
candidature of the petitioners on the
ground that they do not possess 'O' level
certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT
cannot be a ground for their rejection.

12.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has relied upon a judgment in
the case of Abha Tripathi and Ors. v.
State of U.P. & Ors. - (2016) 6 ALL LJ
66 and submitted that the candidates who
possess
the
degree
issued
by
the
University
shall
be
eligible
for
appointment
wherein
the
equivalent
Degree in Computers has been asked for.

13. Learned counsel has also relied
upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Anand
Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. -
2020 SCC Online SC 823 and submitted
that if two degrees are identical, there is
no question of equivalence.

14. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners relied upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Uttrakhand
& Ors. v. Deep Chandra Tiwari & Ors -
2013 SCC Online SC 1141 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
follows:-

"11. We are conscious of the
principle
that
when
particular
qualifications are prescribed for a post,
the candidature of a candidate possessing
higher qualification cannot be rejected on
that basis. No doubt, normal rule would
be
that
candidate
with
higher
qualification is deemed to fulfill the lower
qualification prescribed for a post. But
that higher qualification has to be in the
same channel. Further, this rule will be
subject to an exception. Where the
prescription of a particular qualification
is found to be relevant for discharging the
functions of that post and at the same
time,
the
Government
is
able
to
demonstrate that for want of the said
qualification a candidate may not be
suitable for the post, even if he possesses
a "better" qualification but that "better"
qualification has no relevance with the
functions attached with the post."

15. It is submitted that denying
opportunity to the petitioners to participate
in the selection process for appointment on
the
aforesaid
posts
amounts
to
unreasonable classification, adoption of
dual standards and arbitrariness as similarly
situated
candidates
holding
computer
certificates
equivalent
to
'O'
level
certificate
were
earlier
allowed
to
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
participate in selection for similar posts
under the department.

16. Dr. Mishra has vehemently
submitted that in the case of Deepak Singh
and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ - A
No.24273 of 2018 decided on 23.07.2019),
it has been established that the curriculum
of the Diploma in Engineering and the
Graduation Degree in Engineering are
essentially different. Whereas, in the instant
matter, the petitioners have studied the
same curriculum from a State established
University for the same duration of one
year, as is taught by DOEACC/NIELIT.
Mr. Mishra has further submitted hence the
facts of the matter are substantially
different in the present case and that the
judgment of the Larger Bench in Deepak
Singh's
case
(supra)
is
clearly
distinguishable and not applicable on the
facts of the instant case.

17. It is submitted that a person
seeking recruitment cannot be deprived of
being recruited if the person seeking
recruitment meets the requisite criteria of
qualification(s).

18. Dr. Mishra has lastly submitted
that vide Uttar Pradesh Police Ministerial,
Accounts
and
Confidential
Assistants
Cadres Service (Third Amendment) Rules,
2020,
the
minimum
educational
qualification required for appointment on
the post of ASI contained in Rule 10(1) has
been amended to include any qualification
equivalent to the 'O' level certificate of
NIELIT/ DOEACC recognized by the
Government. He has further submitted that
in pursuance of the aforesaid Amendment
and
decision
taken,
the
Additional
Secretary
(Recruitment),
U.P.
Police
Recruitment and Promotion Board has
issued
Notification
dated
09.07.2020,
whereby it has been clearly laid down that
a certificate issued by a Board/ University/
UGC/AICTE/IGNOU/NIELIT(DOEACC)
established
or
recognized
by
the
State/Central Government shall be treated
as equivalent to the 'O' level certificate
issued by DOEACC Society, as long as the
course upon whose completion such
certificate has been issued, was for a
duration of one year or more. Therefore,
there is no reason to oust the petitioners
from the selection process at hand as the
petitioners possess the degree equivalent to
the 'O' level certificate issued by DOEACC
Society
and
are
fully
eligible
for
appointment on the post of ASI.

19. Per Contra, Dr. Uday Veer Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing for the State has vehemently
opposed
the
submissions
made
by
petitioner's counsel and submitted that
Point No.3.2 of advertisement dated
26.12.2016/Rule 10 of 2016 Rules provides
for
essential
qualification
for
direct
recruitment of the advertised posts.

20. Learned counsel has submitted
that after declaration of result, according to
Clause - C of Rule 17 of 2016 Rules, the
candidates had to appear for scrutiny of the
documents and Physical Standard Test. The
successful candidates from 11.07.2019 to
14.07.2019 had appeared for verification of
the documents and physical standard test. It
is submitted that the candidates whose
documents were not in accordance to the
required documents as per advertisement
dated 26.12.2016 were not allowed for the
next stage.

21. It is submitted that the writ
petitioners
had
qualified
the
written
examination and at the time of scrutiny of
the documents they were rejected on the
3 All. Aakash Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
207
ground that they do not possess 'O' level
certificated issued by DOEACC/NIELIT. It
is submitted by learned counsel for the
State that in Point No.3.2 of Advertisement
dated 26.12.2016 and in Rule 10 of 2016
Rules, it is specifically provided that only
'O'
level
certificate
issued
by
DOEACC/NIELIT is necessary.

22. Learned counsel for the State has
submitted
that
one
of
the
required
qualifications for vacant posts is 'O' level
certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT.
There is no optional clause in the
advertisement or in the 2016 Rules, hence
it is imperative for the candidates to
possess statutory qualification prescribed
for appointment to the concerned post.
Possession
of
higher
qualification
certificate
as
against
prescribed
qualification is inconsequential.

23. Learned counsel has submitted
that it is settled law that the recruitment
process must be completed as per terms and
conditions given in the advertisement and
as per rules existing when the recruitment
process
began.
Equivalent
or
higher
qualification can only be seen if the
recruitment rules provide for the same and
if such advertisement inviting applications
does not indicate that equivalent or higher
qualification holders are eligible to apply
then higher or equivalent qualifications
should not be considered.

24. Learned counsel for the State has
submitted that rules of a game cannot be
changed after the game starts. In the
present selection process, the requisite
qualification was prescribed as "a candidate
having the 'O' level certificate from a
certain society i.e. DOEACC/NIELIT is
eligible" and the said qualification is
required in view of Rule 10 of the Rules of
2016. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners
have been rightly denied the candidature
during scrutiny/verification of documents.

25. Learned counsel for the State has
relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor
Ahmed Rather and Ors. v. Shekh Imtiaz
Ahmed and Ors. - (2019) 2 SCC 404, in
which the following has been held in Para -
26:

"26.
We
are
in
respectful
agreement with the interpretation which
has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti
K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3
SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision
in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2
SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329]. The
decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC
596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on
the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent
such a rule, it would not be permissible to
draw
an
inference
that
a
higher
qualification necessarily presupposes the
acquisition
of
another,
albeit
lower,
qualification.
The
prescription
of
qualifications for a post is a matter of
recruitment policy. The State as the
employer is entitled to prescribe the
qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It
is no part of the role or function of judicial
review to expand upon the ambit of the
prescribed
qualifications.
Similarly,
equivalence of a qualification is not a
matter which can be determined in exercise
of the power of judicial review. Whether a
particular qualification should or should
not be regarded as equivalent is a matter
for the State, as the recruiting authority, to
determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S)
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
664] turned on a specific statutory rule
under which the holding of a higher
qualification
could
presuppose
the
acquisition of a lower qualification. The
absence of such a rule in the present case
makes a crucial difference to the ultimate
outcome. In this view of the matter, the
Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor
Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017,
decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High
Court was justified in reversing the
judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of
J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the
learned Single Judge and in coming to the
conclusion that the appellants did not meet
the prescribed qualifications. We find no
error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v.
Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135
of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of
the Division Bench."

26. Learned counsel has also relied
upon a judgment rendered by a Larger
Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak
Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
rendered in Writ - A No.24273 of 2018
decided on 23.07.2019 wherein it has been
observed that the State Government while
prescribing the essential qualifications or
desirable qualifications are best suited to
decide
requirements
for
selecting
a
candidate for nature of work required by
the State Government and the Courts are
precluded from laying down the conditions
of eligibility. The Court further observed
that the 'O' level Diploma granted by
NIELIT is not equivalent to Post Graduate
Diploma in Computer Application.

27. It is submitted that the recruitment
process of the vacant posts under reference
had been completed and the successful
candidates had joined the said posts. It is
further submitted that Uttar Pradesh Police
Ministerial, Accounts and Confidential
Assistants
Cadres
Service
(Third
Amendment) Rules, 2020, as relied by the
petitioners' counsel, can not be given
retrospective effect in the advertisements in
question.

28. Learned counsel for the State has
submitted that in view of the above facts
and circumstances and law settled, the
instant writ petitioners are devoid of merit
and be dismissed as such.

29. I have heard Dr. L.P. Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners; Dr.
Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel and perused the records
as well as written submissions filed by the
parties as also the judgments cited above.

30. Before I proceed to consider the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, I need to consider the relevant
clauses of advertisement (Clause 3.2 & 3.3)
and relevant rules (Rules 10 & 17), which
are reproduced hereinunder:-

"3.2 - शैक्षिक अर्हता:

1)
-
पुक्षिस
उप
क्षिरीिक
(गोपिीय) पद के क्षिए

(क) - भारत में विवि द्वारा स्थावित
विश्वविद्यालय से स्नातक उिावि या सरकार द्वारा
मान्यता प्राप्त समकक्ष अर्हता,

(ख) - कम से कम 25 शब्द प्रवत
वमनट की गवत से वर्न्दी टंकण (इन्स्क्रिप्ट की-
बोर्ह िर यूनीकोर् में) तथा कम से कम 30 शब्द
प्रवत वमनट की गवत से अंग्रेजी टंकण,

(ग) - न्यूनतम 80 शब्द प्रवत वमनट
की गवत से वर्न्दी आशुवलवि श्रुवतलेख.

(घ) - र्ोएक/नाइवलट सोसायटी से
कम्प्यूटर में 'ओ' स्तर का प्रमाण ित्र।

(2) - पुक्षिस सर्ायक उप क्षिरीिक
(क्षिक्षपक )पद के क्षिए
3 All. Aakash Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
209

(क) - भारत में विवि द्वारा स्थावित
विश्वविद्यालय से स्नातक उिावि या सरकार द्वारा
मान्यता प्राप्त समकक्ष अर्हता

(ख) - कम से कम 25 शब्द प्रवत
वमनट की गवत से वर्न्दी टंकण (इन्स्क्रिप्ट की
बोर्ह िर यूनीकोर् में) तथा कम से कम 30 शब्द
प्रवत वमनट की गवत से अंग्रेजी टंकण,

(ग)- र्ोएक/नाइवलट सोसायटी से
कम्प्यूटर में 'ओ' स्तर का प्रमाण

(3) - पुक्षिस सर्ायक उप क्षिरीिक
(िेखा) पद के क्षिए पत्र।

(क) - भारत में विवि द्वारा स्थावित
विश्वविद्यालय से िावणज्य में स्नातक उिावि या
लेखा शास्त्र िरास्नातक वर्प्लोमा या सरकार
द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त समकक्ष अर्हता,

(ख) - कम से कम 15 शब्द प्रवत
वमनट की गवत से वर्न्दी टंकण इन्स्क्रिप्ट

की बोर्ह िर यूनीकोर् में)

(ग) - र्ोएक/नावइलट सोसायटी से
कम्प्यूटर में 'ओ' स्तर का प्रमाण ित्र।

क्षिप्पणी

(1) िंजीकरण की अन्स्क्िम वतवथ तक
अभ्यथी को अिेवक्षत शैवक्षक अर्हता अिश्य
िाररत करनी चावर्ए तथा उसकी अंकतावलका
अथिा प्रमाण- ित्र उसके िास उिलब्ध र्ोने
चावर्यें। अिेवक्षत शैवक्षक अर्हता र्ेतु िरीक्षा में
सन्स्क्िवलत हुए (appeared) अथिा सन्स्क्िवलत
र्ोने िाले (appearing) अभ्यथी िात्र न र्ोंगे।

(2) आिेदन ित्र में उन्स्क्िन्स्क्खत शैवक्षक
अर्हता की यथाथहता, शुद्धता एिं समकक्षता को
वसद्ध करने के वलए अवभलेखीय साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत
करने का दावयत्व अभ्यथी का र्ोगा। इस सम्बन्ध
में बोर्ह का वनणहय अंवतम र्ोगा।

3.3 - अक्षिमािी अर्हतायें:

अन्य बातों के समान र्ोने िर ऐसे
अभ्यथी को अविमान वदया जायेगा वजसने:

(1) - र्ोएक (DOEACC) नाइवलट
(NIELIT) सोसायटी से उच्च प्रमाणीकरण या
सरकार
द्वारा
मान्यता
प्राप्त
कम्प्यूटर
अिलीकेशना/ प्रौद्योवगकी में स्नातक उिावि या
उससे उच्च अर्हता प्राप्त वकया र्ो,

(2) - विश्वविद्यालय अनुदान आयोग से
मान्यता प्राप्त वकसी संस्थान या मर्ाविद्यालय या
विश्वविद्यालय से विवि में स्नातक वकया र्ो,

(3) - प्रादेवशक सेना में कम से कम
दो िर्ह की सेिा की र्ो,

(4)- राष्ट्रीय कैर्ेट कोर का 'बी'
प्रमाण-ित्र प्राप्त वकया र्ो।"

XXX

XXX

XXX

Rule 10:

Essential qualification for direct
recruitment:

"(i) Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police (Ministerial):

(a) Bachelor's Degree from a
University established by law in India or
equivalent qualification recognised by the
Government.

(b) Hindi typing with speed of at
least 25 words per minute and English
Typing with speed of at least 30 words per
minute (Uni-code based using in-script-key
board or as prescribed by the Head of
Department).

(c)Certificate of 'O' level in
Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society.

(ii) Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police (Accounts):

(a)
Bachelor's
Degree
in
Commerce or Post-Graduate Diploma in
Accountancy
from
an
University
established by law in India or equivalent
qualification
recognised
by
the
Government.

(b) Hindi Typing (Uni-code based
using in-script-key board or as prescribed
by the Head of Department) with speed of
at least 15 words per minute.

(c) Certificate of 'O' level in
Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society.

(iii) Sub-Inspector of Police
(Confidential):
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a) Bachelor's Degree from a
University established by law in India or
equivalent qualification recognised by the
Government.

(b) Hindi Typing with speed of at
least 25 words per minute and English
Typing with speed of at least 30 words per
minute (Uni-code based using in-script-key
board or as prescribed by the Head of
Department).

(c) Hindi shorthand dictation
with a speed of minimum 80 words per
minute.

(d) Certificate of 'O' level in
Computer from DOEACC/NIELIT Society."

Rule 17:

Procedure for Direct recruitment

(A) Application Form and Call
Letter:-

A candidate shall fill only one
application Form. The Board will accept,
only online applications. The Head of the
Department, in consultation with the
Board, shall fix an application fee for a
recruitment. Detailed procedure for filling
the Application Form and issuance of call
letter shall be determined by the Board and
shall be displayed on its website or be
published in the notification.

The Government may change the
number of vacancies for any recruitment at
any time before the first examination and
may also cancel any recruitment at any
time or stage of recruitment without
assigning any reason therefor.

(B) Written Examination:

Candidates whose applications
are found correct, shall be required to
appear for written test or 100 marks. In this
written examination the Board will keep
one objective type question paper of four
following subjects:

Subjects
Maximum Marks
1.
General
Hindi/Computer
Knowledge
100 Marks (Objective
Type)
2.
General
Knowledge/Cur
rent Affiars
100 Marks
(Objective Type)
3.
Numerical
and
Mental
Ability Test

100 Marks
(Objective Type)
4.
Mental
Aptitude
Test/I.Q.
Test/Reasoning
100 Marks
(Objective Type)

Candidates failing to obtain 50%
marks in each of the above subjects shall
not be eligible for recruitment. The Board
will decide on its own level to conduct
written examination on one date in a single
shift or in more than one shift or on more
than one date in different shifts with
different
question
paper.
Detailed
procedure
and
syllabus
for
written
examination shall be determined by the
Board and will be displayed on its website
or shall be published in the notification.

(C) Scrutiny of Documents and
Physical Standard Test

Candidates found successful in
written examination under clause (B) shall
be required to appear in Scrutiny of
Documents and Physical Standard Test.
Keeping in view the total number of.
vacancies, the Board shall decide at its own
level, the number of candidates on the basis
of merit to be called for this test. Physical
Standards for candidates are as follows:

1. Minimum Physical Standards
for male candidates are as follows:

(a) Height:

(i) for General/Other Backward
classes
and
Scheduled
Castes
male
3 All. Aakash Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
211
candidates height should be 163 minimum
centimetres

(ii) for Scheduled Tribes male
candidates minimum height should be 156
cemtimeters

(b) Chest:

For the candidates belonging to
General Other Backward classes and
Scheduled
Castes
minimum
chest
measurement should be 77 centimetres
without
expansion
and
at
least
82
centimetres with expansion; and for the
candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Tribes 75 centimetres without expansion
and not less than 80 centimetres on
expansion.

Note: Minimum 5 centimete chest
expansion is essential

2. Minimum physical Standards
for female candidates are as follows:

(a) Height:

(i)
for
General
or
Other
Backward classes and Scheduled Castes
female candidates minimum height should
be 150 centimetres.

(ii) for Scheduled Tribes female
candidates minimum height should be 145
centimetres

(b) Weight: Minimum 40 Kg. for
female candidates.

For conducting this examination
a committee will be constituted by the
Board in which a Deputy Collector
nominated by the District Magistrate will
the
Chairman
and
the
Deputy
Superintendent of Police nominated by the
District Superintendent of Police will be
the member. The other members of the
committee shall be nominated by the
District Magistrate or the Superintendent
of Police if requested by the board.

Detailed
procedure
for
this
examination shall be determined by the
Board and will be displayed on its website
or shall be published in the notification.

If any candidate is not satisfied
with his Physical Standard Test, he may file
an objection on the same day after the test.

For clearing all such objection:
the
Board
nominate
one
Additional
Superintendent of Police at every place and
Physical
Standard
Test
of
all
such
candidates will be conducted again by the
committee in the presence of the said
nominated Additional Superintendent of
Police. All those candidates who are again
found
unsuccessful
in
the
Physical
Standard Test will be declared unfit for
recruitment and no further appeal will be
entertained in this regard.

D)
Computer
Typing
and
Stenography Examination

Candidates found successful in
Scrutiny
of
Documents
and
Medical
Examination as per part (C) shall be
required to appear in the computer typing
test of qualifying nature. The qualifying
typing speed shall be as per the post which
has been applied for by the candidate. Only
those candidates who have applied for the
post
of
Sub
Inspector
of
Police
(Confidential) and qualify the required
typing test as above, shall have to appear
in stenography test which shall be of
qualifying nature. The procedure for the
examination shall be decided by the Board
and will be displayed on its website or shall
be published in the notification.

(E) Selection and Final Merit
List

From amongst candidates who
have qualified in computer typing and from
amongst
those
candidates
who
have
applied for the post of Sub Inspector of
Police (Confidential) and have qualified
the stenography test also, the Board shall
prepare a select list of candidates of each
post separately as per vacancies, on the
basis of aggregate marks obtained by them
in Written examination, keeping in view the
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reservation policy, and send it with
recommendation to the Head of the
Department,
subject
to
Medical
test/character verification. No waiting list
shall be prepared by the Board. List of all
such candidates with marks obtained by
each candidate shall be uploaded on its
website by the Board. The Head of the
Department
shall
after
his
approval
forward the list sent by the Board to the
Appointing Authority for further action.

Note:- If two or more than two
candidates obtain equal marks then their
seniority shall be decided by the procedure
laid down in the following order:

(1) If two or more candidates
obtain equal marks then such candidate
will be given preference who possesses
preferential qualification, if any in the same
order as stated in rule (11). Candidate
having
more
than
one
preferential
qualification shall get the benefit of any
one preferential qualification

(2) Even then if two or more
candidates
have
equal
marks
then
candidate older in age shall be given
preference.

(3) If despite the aforementioned
more than one candidates are equal, then
preference to such candidate shall be
determined according to the order in
English
Alphabets
of
their
names
mentioned in High School Certificate.

(F) Medical Test:

The candidates whose names are
in the select list as per clause (c), will be
required
to
appear
for
Medical
Examination by the Appointing authority.
For conducting the medical examination,
the Chief Medical Officer of the concerned
district shall constitute a Medical Board,
which will have 03 doctors, who will
conduct Medical Examination asu per
Police Recruitment Medical Examination
Forms as prescribed and codified by the
Head of Department in consultation with
the Director General of Medical Health.
Any candidate not satisfied by his Medical
Examination, may file an appeal on the day
of examination itself. Any appeal with
regard to Medical Examination will not be
considered if the candidate fails to file the
appeal on the date of Medical Examination
and declaration of its result itself. The
Medical Board constituted for appeal shall
have expert regarding Medical deficiency
of the applicant. The detailed instructions
for conducting Medical examination will be
issued by the Director General of Police.
The candidates found unsuccessful in
Medical Examination shall be declared
unfit by the Appointing authority and such
vacancies shall be carried forward for next
selection.

(G) Character Verification:

Character Verification shall be
completed
under
the
supervision
of
appointing authority before issuing of
appointment letter and before sending the
candidates for training. On adverse fact
coming
to
light
during
character
verification of any candidate, he shall be
declared unfit by the appointing authority
and such vacancy shall be carried forward
for next selection.

31. Para - 26 of the writ petition
provides comparative chart of all courses
completed by the petitioners with the
syllabus
of
'O'
level
course.
After
comparing the syllabus of 'O' level course
of
DOEACC/NIELIT
with
the
qualifications which the petitioners are
possessing, it is clear that syllabus of 'O'
level
course
is
included
in
the
degrees/diplomas
possessed
by
the
petitioners.

32. The eligibility criteria for
appointment on the post of ASI comprised
3 All. Aakash Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
213
of three components i.e. (1) Educational
qualification
of
graduation,
(2)
Foundational knowledge in computers and
(3) competence in typing. The process of
selection also consist three stages i.e. (1)
written
examination,
(2)
document
verification and physical standard test and
(3) typing test.

33. In the instant case, all the
petitioners
herein
qualified
written
examination but they have been denied at
second stage i.e. document verification and
physical standard test on the ground that
they do not possess 'O' level certificate
issued by DOEACC/NIELIT, which is a
one year foundational course in Computer.

34.

Now
the
first
issue
for
adjudication before this Court is whether it
is permissible for the respondents to insist
on
'O'
level
certificate
issued
by
DOEACC/NIELIT for appointment on the
posts advertised ?

35. In the case of Ganesh Kuwarbi
and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
- 2014 SCC OnLine Utt 1917, the
following has been held in Paras - 6, 7, 9 &
10:-

"6. Since, this Court was not an
expert in this field, this Court vide order
dated
09.04.2014
had
directed
the
authorities to constitute a Committee to
examine
the
computer
operation
certificates of the candidates, whether they
have equivalent or higher qualification in
such field. In compliance of this Court's
order, a Committee was constituted and
such Committee examined the computer
certificates of the petitioners and other
candidates and after examination of the
certificates, the Committee came to a
conclusion that there is a partial similarity
in the Course which the petitioners have
done with the ''O' Level computer course.
The Committee further said that in case the
Certificates
are
recognized
by
the
organizations of the Centre or State
Government, their matter be considered
sympathetically. This is the report which
has been filed before this Court.