# Abhinav Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 169
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-27
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 19283 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhinav-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53722
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Diptiman Singh, Ashok Srivastava, Avneesh
Tripathi, C.S.C., Dhananjay Awasthi M.N.
Singh, Rahul Jain

Issues for consideration
(a) Whether the status of the qualification of
Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application
(in short 'PGDCA') issued by the autonomous
constituent institute of University of Allahabad
namely the Ewing Christian College, Allahabad,
to be treated as equivalent to 'O' level certificate
issued by the DOEACC Society? (Para 2, 15)

(b) Whether in the face of the fact that
selections have taken place taking the legal
position as then stood qua 2017 advertisement
as obviously the State Government's letter is
subsequent one, should it be equitable and in
the interest of justice to direct the Commission
to
re-draw
the
merit
list
taking
into
consideration the PGDCA certificate issued by
the concerned Universities recognized under the
Government letter? (Para 15)

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Qualification
-
Appointment - The recruitment policy falls
within the sole domain of employer to
formulate bearing in mind the nature of
functions
and
duties
attached
to
a
particular post and in the absence of any
such decision by the State Government,
the Court clarifies that it cannot adopt the
role of State Government and therefore,
should desist from applying any such
qualification
as
equivalent
one
and
therefore, the issue should be left to the
assessment of employer alone. The Rules
become dominant factor in determining the
equivalence. (Para 16)

In respect of equivalence qua a certificate
can only arise where the Rules in question
do permit equivalent degree/ certificate
as conferring eligibility upon a candidate
to participate in selection process. It is for
the
State
Government
to
formulate
a
recruitment policy and lay down the Rules qua
academic qualification, equivalent qualification
and other eligibility criteria. (Para 17, 18)

For the post of ARO the rules do provide so also
advertisement that one must possess 'O' level
certified
issued
by
DOEACC
Society
or
equivalent qualification or certificate. (Para 19)

The question of equivalence, therefore, fell
absolutely within the authority of the State
Government. The State Government in the
present case clarified its stand that the 'O' level
certificate issued by certain Universities that
included
University
of
Allahabad
to
be
equivalent to PGDCA certificate required under
the relevant recruitment rules. This being the
legal position emerging out of the circular letter
issued
by
the
State
Government
dated
20.10.2022, it does not lie within the authority
of the UPPSC to take a contrary stand. (Para 20,
21)

B. Since it lies in the domain of the State
Government
to
clarify
its
position
regarding equivalence of qualification,
more especially when the rules and the
advertisement did provide for equivalent
qualification to be applicable, there is
nothing wrong or otherwise illegal if this
clarification
issued
by
the
State
Government is made applicable to the
selection underway/ stage of preparation
of final select list. It is true that rules of the
game
cannot
be
changed
once
the
advertisement has given selection process effect
to and there may be circumstances where many
candidates may be possessing such qualification
may not have applied but a clarificatory stand
by the State Government can always be taken
during continuance of selection process. (Para
25)

The Government has clarified its position
regarding
equivalence
vide
letter
dated
20.10.2025 in terms of 2016 selection which is
quite apparent vide clause 4. (Para 24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Vikas & 80 Others Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others,
and other connected matters, 2021 (9) ADJ 59
(Para 12)

List of Acts
8 All. Abhinav Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171
UGC Guidelines 2012-17; State Government
Circular letter dated 20.10.2023;.

List of Keywords
Service
Law;
appointment;
equivalent
qualification.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for the Petitioner(

## Text

8 All. Abhinav Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
169
proceeding
or
the
enquiry
by
the
administrative Tribunal; as the case may
be, final orders are passed by the
competent authority.

(3)
No
death-cum-retirement
gratuity shall be paid to the Government
servant
until
the
conclusion
of
the
departmental proceedings or the enquiry by
the Administrative Tribunal and issue of
final orders thereon.

(4)
Payment
of
provisional
pension made under clause (1) above shall
be
adjusted
against
final
retirement
benefits sanctioned to such Government
servant upon conclusion of the proceedings
or enquiry referred to in clause (3) but no
recovery shall be made where the pension
finally
sanctioned
is
less
than
the
provisional pension or withheld either
permanently or for specified period.?

(emphasis added)

16. In view of the above, therefore, the
respondents would have been justified in
withholding pension and gratuity even after
the issuance of the pension payment order
and gratuity payment order provided there
was a lawfully instituted enquiry pending
against the petitioner. It is admitted to the
respondents that there is no judicial
proceedings or any proceedings by virtue
of an order of administrative tribunal
pending against the petitioner. It is only
pursuant to an illegal charge sheet issued
on 01.05.2024 that on 22.04.2024 the
Assistant Accounts Officer of the Police
Headquarter of the Department of Finance
Controller came to pass an order for
withholding pension and gratuity which
according to me, is absolutely illegal order
in view of the findings arrived above that
there was no prior sanction by the
Governor
to
institute
disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner which
has resulted in holding charge-sheet to be
null and void. The entire instructions is
silent as to whether any letter has been
written to the State Government seeking
prior approval from the Governor.

17. In view of the above, the
respondents are held to be unjustified in
withholding pension and gratuity of the
petitioner.

18. Thus this writ petition succeeds
and is allowed. The order passed dated
22.04.2024 at the behest of Finance
Controller
U.P.
Police
Headquarter,
Lucknow directing for withholding of
pension and gratuity of the petitioner is
hereby quashed.

19. Respondents are directed to
immediately
release
the
entire
post
retirement dues including gratuity without
any deduction within a maximum period of
six weeks from the production of certified
copy of this order failing which they shall
be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12%
from the date of his retirement till the
actual payment is made.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 169
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 19283 of 2023

Abhinav Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajesh Kumar, Shree Prakash Giri
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
Diptiman Singh, Ashok Srivastava, Avneesh
Tripathi, C.S.C., Dhananjay Awasthi M.N.
Singh, Rahul Jain

Issues for consideration
(a) Whether the status of the qualification of
Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application
(in short 'PGDCA') issued by the autonomous
constituent institute of University of Allahabad
namely the Ewing Christian College, Allahabad,
to be treated as equivalent to 'O' level certificate
issued by the DOEACC Society? (Para 2, 15)

(b) Whether in the face of the fact that
selections have taken place taking the legal
position as then stood qua 2017 advertisement
as obviously the State Government's letter is
subsequent one, should it be equitable and in
the interest of justice to direct the Commission
to
re-draw
the
merit
list
taking
into
consideration the PGDCA certificate issued by
the concerned Universities recognized under the
Government letter? (Para 15)

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Qualification
-
Appointment - The recruitment policy falls
within the sole domain of employer to
formulate bearing in mind the nature of
functions
and
duties
attached
to
a
particular post and in the absence of any
such decision by the State Government,
the Court clarifies that it cannot adopt the
role of State Government and therefore,
should desist from applying any such
qualification
as
equivalent
one
and
therefore, the issue should be left to the
assessment of employer alone. The Rules
become dominant factor in determining the
equivalence. (Para 16)

In respect of equivalence qua a certificate
can only arise where the Rules in question
do permit equivalent degree/ certificate
as conferring eligibility upon a candidate
to participate in selection process. It is for
the
State
Government
to
formulate
a
recruitment policy and lay down the Rules qua
academic qualification, equivalent qualification
and other eligibility criteria. (Para 17, 18)

For the post of ARO the rules do provide so also
advertisement that one must possess 'O' level
certified
issued
by
DOEACC
Society
or
equivalent qualification or certificate. (Para 19)

The question of equivalence, therefore, fell
absolutely within the authority of the State
Government. The State Government in the
present case clarified its stand that the 'O' level
certificate issued by certain Universities that
included
University
of
Allahabad
to
be
equivalent to PGDCA certificate required under
the relevant recruitment rules. This being the
legal position emerging out of the circular letter
issued
by
the
State
Government
dated
20.10.2022, it does not lie within the authority
of the UPPSC to take a contrary stand. (Para 20,
21)

B. Since it lies in the domain of the State
Government
to
clarify
its
position
regarding equivalence of qualification,
more especially when the rules and the
advertisement did provide for equivalent
qualification to be applicable, there is
nothing wrong or otherwise illegal if this
clarification
issued
by
the
State
Government is made applicable to the
selection underway/ stage of preparation
of final select list. It is true that rules of the
game
cannot
be
changed
once
the
advertisement has given selection process effect
to and there may be circumstances where many
candidates may be possessing such qualification
may not have applied but a clarificatory stand
by the State Government can always be taken
during continuance of selection process. (Para
25)

The Government has clarified its position
regarding
equivalence
vide
letter
dated
20.10.2025 in terms of 2016 selection which is
quite apparent vide clause 4. (Para 24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Vikas & 80 Others Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others,
and other connected matters, 2021 (9) ADJ 59
(Para 12)

List of Acts
8 All. Abhinav Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171
UGC Guidelines 2012-17; State Government
Circular letter dated 20.10.2023;.

List of Keywords
Service
Law;
appointment;
equivalent
qualification.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Rajesh Kumar,
Shree Prakash Giri
Counsel for the Respondent(s): Diptiman
Singh, Ashok Srivastava, Avneesh Tripathi,
C.S.C., Dhananjay Awasthi, M.N. Singh, Rahul
Jain

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar and Sri
Shree Prakash Giri, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Avneesh Tripathi,
learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service
Commission, Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned
counsel for respondent no. 6, Sri Rahul Jain,
learned counsel appearing for University
Grants Commission, Sri Diptiman Singh,
learned counsel for the University of
Allahabad and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. The controversy in the present case
centres
around
the
status
of
the
qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in
Computer Application (in short 'PGDCA')
issued by the autonomous constituent
institute of University of Allahabad namely
the Ewing Christian College, Allahabad,
whether to be treated as equivalent to 'O'
level certificate issued by the DOEACC
Society. The controversy arose on account of
a fact that petitioner applied against the post
of Review Officer and Assistant Review
Officer in U.P. Secretariat with requisite
qualification presenting certificate of Post
Graduate Diploma in Computer Application
issued by the said institute. The candidature
was not being accorded due consideration at
the stage of preparation of final select list on
the ground that such certificate cannot be
treated as equivalent to the 'O' Level
certificate issued by the DOEACC Society.

3. After the exchange of pleadings by
the respective parties, specially the Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short
'UPPSC'), this court asked from the
University Grants Commission (in short
'UGC') under its order dated 20.05.2025 as to
whether the UGC permitted a recognized
autonomous institute of a University to grant
such PGDCA certificate.

4. On the last date Sri Rahul Jain,
learned counsel appearing for UGC had
clarified the stand of the UGC on the issue by
referring to clause 10 of the UGC Guidelines
2012-17 which permitted such autonomous
college/ institute to start Diploma courses
both Under Graduate and Post Graduate level
or even certificate courses without prior
approval of the University concerned.

5. Thus, according to Sri Jain, the ECC
which is an autonomous constituent institute
of University of Allahabad was fully justified
in running PGDCA course and issuing
certificate in respect thereof. The Court was
then to consider as to whether such certificate
can be taken to be equivalent to 'O' level
certificate or not and referring to the
advertisement and clause given therein
providing
for
'O'
level
certificate
or
equivalent certificate issued by a recognized
University, the Court was prima facie
satisfied
that
ECC
being
autonomous
constituent
institute
of
University
of
Allahabad, the PGDCA certificate was liable
to be taken as equivalent to 'O' level
certificate issued by the DOEACC Society.

6. In the circumstances, while the
Court was proceeding to pass final order,
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel
appearing for UPPSC had prayed for
adjournment on the ground that Sri G.K.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing
in this case. Matter was accordingly
adjourned for today by passing a detailed
order on 22.08.2025 which is reproduced
hereunder:

"Heard Shri Shree Prakssh Giri,
learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Rahul
Jain, learned counsel for University Grants
Commission,
Shri
Avneesh
Tripathi,
learned
counsel
for
Public
Service
Commission,
Shri
Ashok
Srivastava,
learned counsel for respondent No. 6 and
Shri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for
respondent No. 7.

The dispute is with regard to the
status of certificate of post-graduate
diploma in computer application issued by
autonomous
institute,
namely,
Ewing
Christian College, Centre for Computer
Science and whether this certificate is a
qualification recognized equivalent to one
required under the advertisement issued by
Public Service Commission on 27.09.2016
for the post of Review Officer (Accounts)/
Assistant Review Officer in the U.P.
Secretariat which required 'O' Level
certificate in computer application from an
institute recognized by the Government.

From
the
perusal
of
the
advertisement it clearly transpires that as
far as the post of Assistant Review Officer
in
U.P.
Secretariat
is
concerned
a
candidate is required to possess bachelor's
degree from a University established by
law in India or qualification recognized by
government equivalent thereto and having
'O' Level certificate issued by DOEACC
Society or qualification equivalent thereto
and must possess minimum speed of 25
words per minute in Hindi typewriting. A
note
appended
thereto
provides
for
preference to be given to candidate
knowing English Typewriting also.

The dispute was only with regard
to the petitioner's qualification having postgraduate diploma in computer application
whether to be an equivalent qualification to
'O' Level certificate or not since petitioner
possessed
the
post-graduate
diploma
certificate in computer application from an
autonomous institute namely the Computer
Centre
of
Ewing
Christian
College,
Allahabad.

The
counsel
appearing
for
University
Grants
Commission
was
directed to obtain instructions as to
whether this above institution was listed for
the purposes of grant of certificate. Shri
Rahul Jain, learned Advocate appearing
for University Grants Commission submits
that as per his instructions there is no such
list available with the respondents but the
University
Grants
Commission
has
recognized this autonomous institute which
is Ewing Christian College and as per
clause 10 of the 2012-17 guidelines meant
for autonomous colleges such autonomous
colleges are entitled to start diploma
courses both under-graduate and postgraduate or even certificate courses
without
the
prior
approval
of
the
University. The diploma certificate was,
however required to be issued under seal of
the college.

I find that the post-graduate
diploma
certificate
obtained
by
the
petitioner under the seal of the college
namely Ewing Christian College Centre for
Computer Science, an autonomous college
of Allahabad University running Centre for
Computer Science.

Shri Avneesh Tripathi, learned
Advocate appearing for Public Service
Commission seeks 48 hours time to come
back with fresh instructions from the
8 All. Abhinav Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
173
Commission about the certificate appended
as annexure No. 2 to the petition.

List this matter on 27.08.2025."

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the records, I proceed to examine the
matter as to whether PGDCA certificate
issued by the autonomous constituent
institute of University of Allahabad namely
ECC, can be taken at par with/ equivalent
to 'O' level certificate issued by the
DOEACC Society which a candidate is
required to possess for the purposes of
selection and appointment on the post in
question under the advertisement.

8. While Mr. Giri and Mr. Shukla
appearing for the petitioner have reiterated
their previous arguments, today in support
of their arguments have taken the Court
towards the stand of the State Government
vide circular letter dated 20.10.2023 in
which for the post of ARO (Accounts)
certain
certificates
issued
by
certain
Universities have taken to be equivalent to
'O' level certificate. For ready reference,
clause 4 of the circular letter is reproduced
hereunder:

4
सहायक
समीक्षा
अगिकारी (लेिा) के ऐसे
अभ्यागथगयो
की
संख्या
ण्जनके पास 'ओ' लेिल
कम्प्यूटर के स्थान पर
अन्य समक्ष प्रमाण पत्र
है। 2016 एिं 2017 का
अलि-अलि वििरण।
ियन िषग 2016 में 'ओ'
लेिल के समक्ष अहगता प्रमाणपत्र प्राप्त करने िाले उत्तर
प्रदेश
शासन
में
सहायक
समीक्षा अगिकारी (लेिा) के
पद पर कायगिार ग्रहण करने
िाले अभ्यगथगयों की संख्या-10
है।
1- विभलयम कैरी यूतनिभसगटी,
भशलांि, मेघालय।
2-
हहमालयन
यूतनिभसगटी
ईटानिर अरूणालय प्रदेश।
3-
अरूणािल
यूतनिभसगटी
आफ
स्टिीज,
अरूणािल
प्रदेश।
4-
यूतनिभसगटी
आफ
इलाहाबाद।
5-
मािनलाल
ितुिेदी,
राटरीय पत्रकाररता एिं संिार
विश्िविद्यालय िोपाल।
6-
सेंटर
आफ
कम्प्यूटर
इजुकेशन
इंस्टीट्यूट
आफ
प्रोफेशनल स्टिीज यूतनिभसगटी
आफ इलाहाबाद।
7-
िाo
सीoिीo
रमन
यूतनिभसगटी,
बबलासपुर,
(सीoजीo)
8-
क्लोरेक्स
टीिसग
यूतनिभसगटी,
अहमदाबाद
िुजरात।
9- महात्मा ज्योततबा फुले
रूहेलिडि विश्िविद्यालय।
10-
महावषग
महेश
योिी
विगिक विश्िविद्यालय, मध्य
प्रदेश।

9. Learned Advocates have also drawn
the attention of the Court towards the report
of a three member Committee constituted
by UPPSC to assess and appreciate the
claim set up by the candidates for the
PGDCA certificate to be taken at par with
the 'O' level certificate and it came out with
an opinion that the PGDCA accorded by
various Universities and Organizations is
liable to be taken as equivalent to 'O' level
certificate issued by the National Institute
of Electronics & Information Technology
(in short 'NIELIT'). It is worth mentioning
here that NIELIT is no new body but a new
name of DOEACC Society. Para 7 of the
recommendations made by the Committee
constituted by the UPPSC is reproduced
hereunder:

"Post
Graduate
Diploma
in
Computer Application (PGDCA)/ Diploma
in Computer Application (DCA) accorded
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by various Universities and organizations/
any
other
diploma
in
Computer
Application/ Computer Science/ IT will be
considered as equivalent to 'O' level of
NIELIT provided

(i) The course is minimum one
year and maximum two years duration.

(ii) The course structure must
contain practical / internship/ training/
project work.

(iii) The course certificates must
have
been
issued
by
a
recognized
University established by UGC/ state
government/ central government or any
organization of state/ central government.

(iv) If any certificate has been
issued
by
any
affiliated/
associate/
constituent college/ center of the University
without the endorsement of the competent
authority of the University, it will be
rejected."

10. Sri Giri has also argued and
vehemently so that the right to determine a
qualification as an equivalent qualification
which is prescribed under the Rules, lies
solely
within
the
domain
of
State
Government, the chief employer and not
the
recommending
body namely
the
UPPSC.

11.
Under
the
circumstances,
therefore, the UPPSC is not justified to
question the decision taken by the State
Government, nor in any manner can
constitute a committee to examine a
particular qualification to be considered as
equivalent to the one prescribed under the
Rules or not. It is argued that in all such
circumstances when there is a doubt
created in the matter of qualification to be
treated as equivalent to the one prescribed
under the Rules, it is required for the
UPPSC to refer the matter to the State
Government to either come with an opinion
straightway
by
taking
it
from
the
department concerned or to constitute a
committee to assess and appreciate the
controversy so as to give a formal opinion
in the matter.

12. Meeting the submissions so
advanced by learned Advocate appearing
for the petitioner, Sri G.K. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate has relied upon the
decision of coordinate bench of this Court
in the matter of Vikas & 80 Others v.
State of U.P. & 2 Others, and other
connected matters, 2021 (9) ADJ 59 and
has placed summation part of the judgment
as contained in para 54 thereof. Para 54 of
the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

"In
view
of
the
aforesaid
discussion the Court records the following
conclusions:-

A.
The
prescription
of
a
qualification is a matter of recruitment
policy which stands reserved for the
employer to formulate bearing in mind the
nature of functions and duties attached to a
particular post. Courts must recognise the
secondary function that they are expected
to perform in this regard restricting the
scrutiny
of
review
to
whether
the
qualifications as prescribed can be said to
be arbitrary or irrational.

B. It is not the function of the
Court to adjudge or evaluate the suitability
or desirability of a particular qualification
that may be prescribed. Here too, the
Courts must exercise due restraint and
desist from treading down this path since
these issues must be left to the fair
judgment and assessment of the employer
and the experts in the field.

C. The issue of an equivalent
qualification being accepted would only
arise where the rules do envisage and
provide that such a qualification would
8 All. Abhinav Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
175
also be liable to be considered. In the
absence of an express stipulation in that
respect being provisioned for in the
relevant rules, no occasion would arise for
the Court to examine that question.

D. The Court reiterates the
position as enunciated in Asheesh Kumar
that
a
contention
with
respect
to
equivalence can only arise where the rules
in question do permit an equivalent degree
as conferring eligibility upon a candidate
to participate in the selection process.

E. Zahoor Ahmad Rather is a
binding authority for the proposition that
equivalence of qualifications is not a
matter which should be determined in
exercise of the power of judicial review.
The Supreme Court went on to observe that
the question of whether a particular
qualification
is
to
be
regarded
as
equivalent is a matter for the recruiting
authority to determine. The Court also
bears in mind the decision in Sandeep
Shriram Warade where the Supreme Court
in more categorical terms held that
questions of equivalence would fall outside
the domain of judicial review.

F. Deepak Singh lays emphasis
on the fact that the qualifications which are
specifically provided for alone would
determine the eligibility of a particular
candidate. It further held that where the
rules do not envisage or permit candidates
holding a better qualification specifically,
they must be viewed as being excluded from
consideration. Deepak Singh thus clarifies
the legal position that merely because a
candidate perceives that a qualification
held by him is superior or better, that alone
would not entitle him to be considered as
eligible unless the rules of selection so
ordain or provide for a higher qualification
being accepted.

G. It would neither be permissible
to expand upon the prescribed qualification
nor should the Court substitute its own
view to hold a higher qualification to be
equivalent
to
that
which
has
been
prescribed.

H. Absent a stipulation in the
Rules which govern the selection in
question, it would be impermissible to
recognise the petitioners as being eligible
to apply or participate in the selection
process. Those Rules do not envisage
equivalence being accorded to what may be
perceived to be a "higher" or "better"
qualification. Absent such a provision
being statutorily engrafted, the Court finds
no justification to expand the field of
eligibility in the exercise of its powers of
judicial review.

I. The letter of 20 July 2021
merely elicits the views of the respondents
for the consideration of the Commission. In
fact, as is evident from a careful reading of
the concluding part of that communication,
the State had forwarded its views solely for
the purposes of inviting the "advise" and
"suggestions" of the Commission. That
communication neither represents nor is it
capable of being interpreted as constituting
a definitive opinion of the State and its
desire for the same being accepted and
acted upon by the Commission.

J. The communication of 9 June
2020 must be understood and appreciated
in the backdrop of the relevant Rules which
envisaged preference being accorded to
qualifications higher or better than the O
level certificate. The aforesaid position is
evident from a conjoint reading of Rules 10
and 11 thereof. The Rules which apply to
the present recruitment carry no provision
like Rule 11. In view of the aforesaid, the
Court is of the considered opinion that the
aforesaid communication also does not
advance the case of the petitioners here.

K. The obligation to lay down an
unambiguous selection criterion which
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
flows from and forms the essence of the
rights conferred by Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution, would necessarily include
a duty being recognised as bearing upon
the selecting and recruiting body to
predetermine and formulate a well-defined
criterion of eligibility. This facet which
forms an integral part of any selection
process
cannot
be
postponed
for
determination after the selection process
has commenced.

L. The statement of the law in
Prashant Kumar Jaiswal and Mukul Kumar
Tyagi clearly warrants the recordal of the
conclusion that the issue of equivalence
must necessarily be predetermined and
cannot be left to the vagaries of the
recruiting or selecting body taking a
decision in that regard either after the
commencement of the selection or not
taking a view on that question at all."

13. After referring to the ratio laid
down in the judgment vide para 54, Sri
Tripathi has referred to the final directives
issued under para 56 and 57 and submitted
that the State Government was in fact
directed to take a stand in the matter so as
to remove the confusion and doubt.

14.
The
sheet
anchor
argument
advanced by learned counsel appearing for
the UPPSC is that once the petitions filed
by the candidates were dismissed by this
Court, the legal position stood intact and
since the subsequent selections pursuant to
the advertisement issued in 2017 have been
finalized in terms of the legal position that
stood then, it would not be appropriate and
equitable at this stage to re-open the merit
list of 2016 selection which has been
finalized though subsequent to 2017
selection. Thus, it is argued that the
clarification made by the State Government
should be taken as prospective one for
future selection and not the selection in
question.

15. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the records, two questions arise for
consideration of this Court:

(a) Whether UPPSC is justified in
taking stand contrary to what has already
been taken by the State Government in
clarifying the position of equivalence qua
PGDCA viz-a-viz 'O' level certificate issued
by the DOEACC?

(b) Whether in the face of the fact
that selections have taken place taking the
legal position as then stood qua 2017
advertisement as obviously the State
Government's letter is subsequent one,
should it be equitable and in the interest of
justice to direct the Commission to re-draw
the merit list taking into consideration the
PGDCA certificate issued by the concerned
Universities
recognized
under
the
Government letter?

16. Coming to the first question, I
would like here to refer para 54(A) of the
judgment cited by Sri Tripathi. Paragraph
no. 54(A) in a quite unequivocal terms and
very
categorically
holds
that
the
recruitment policy falls within the sole
domain of employer to formulate bearing in
mind the nature of functions and duties
attached to a particular post and in the
absence of any such decision by the State
Government, vide paragraph no.54(B), the
Court clarifies that it cannot adopt the role
of State Government and therefore, should
desist from applying any such qualification
as equivalent one and therefore, the issue
should be left to the assessment of
employer alone. The Court further vide
para 54(C) provided that the Rules become
dominant
factor
in
determining
the
8 All. Abhinav Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
177
equivalence
and
reading
down
this
paragraph with para 54(A), it is for the
State Government now to provide for the
same.

17. It is in these very lines of the legal
principles laid down under the authority of
this Court and Supreme Court that the
Court in the case of Ashish Kumar this
Court
reiterated
that
in
respect
of
equivalence qua a certificate can only arise
where the Rules in question do permit
equivalent degree/ certificate as conferring
eligibility upon a candidate to participate in
selection process.

18. The ratio of the judgment,
therefore, is very obvious that it is for the
State
Government
to
formulate
a
recruitment policy and lay down the Rules
qua academic qualification, equivalent
qualification and other eligibility criteria.

19. Coming to the Rules in question, I
find that for the post of ARO the rules do
provide so also advertisement that one must
possess 'O' level certified issued by
DOEACC
Society
or
equivalent
qualification or certificate.

20. The question of equivalence,
therefore, which was germane to the issue,
fell absolutely within the authority of the
State Government. The State Government
in the present case clarified its stand that
the 'O' level certificate issued by certain
Universities that included University of
Allahabad to be equivalent to PGDCA
certificate required under the relevant
recruitment rules. It is not doubted by
either of the parties that the degree and
certificate is issued by the University of
Allahabad to which ECC, Prayagraj is a
constituent institute, and therefore, such
cases where the Post Graduate Diploma
courses are being run by such a institute
under the aegis of University of Allahabad
as its constituent institute/ college, then
such
certificate
issued
would
value
equivalent to the one like 'O' level
certificate prescribed under the Rules for
the purpose of recruitment.

21. This being the legal position
emerging out of the circular letter issued by
the State Government dated 20.10.2022
which is being reproduced hereinabove, in
my considered view it does not lie within
the authority of the UPPSC to take a
contrary stand. Interestingly, neither the
UPPSC has doubted the stand if the State
Government, nor it has questioned its own
committee's stand vide its opinion dated
10.12.2019 that the PGDCA will be
considered as equivalent to 'O' level
certificate issued by NIELIT erstwhile
DOEACC, nor learned Senior counsel for
the UPPSC could demonstrate before the
Court any contrary stand taken by the State
Government, nor could place any judgment
which may provide that even if the State
Government has provided for correction or
clarification
in
respect
of
requisite
qualification, that should not be adopted in
the process of selection which is still
underway.

22. In the circumstances, therefore, the
first question stands answered in favour of
the petitioner.

23. In so far as the second question is
concerned, that relates to the argument that
once the selection process has already
reached to final stage and pursuant to
subsequent advertisement issued in 2017,
the selection has already been carried out in
terms of the legal position qua qualification
as it stood then prior to 20.10.2023 and
hence in respect of the selection which is
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being finalized qua earlier advertisement,
the status quo as to qualification as was
then existing, should not be changed.

24. Thus, argument advanced by
learned Senior Advocate in support of
above question is to be rejected only. I find
that the Government has clarified its
position regarding equivalence vide letter
dated 20.10.2025 in terms of 2016 selection
which is quite apparent vide clause 4 which
is reproduced hereinabove.

25. It is true that rules of the game
cannot be changed once the advertisement
has given selection process effect to and
there may be circumstances where many
candidates
may
be
possessing
such
qualification may not have applied but in
my considered view as I have already held
in the judgment that a clarificatory stand by
the State Government can always be taken
during continuance of selection process.
Since it lies in the domain of the State
Government
to
clarify
its
position
regarding equivalence of qualification,
more especially when the rules and the
advertisement did provide for equivalent
qualification to be applicable, I do not see
anything wrong or otherwise illegal if this
clarification
issued
by
the
State
Government is made applicable to the
selection underway/ stage of preparation of
final select list.

26. In view of the above, the second
question also stands answered in favour of
the petitioner.

27. In view of the above, writ petition
succeeds and is accordingly allowed.

28. Writ of mandamus is issued to the
U.P. State Public Service Commission to
treat petitioner's candidature on merit
considering his PGDCA certificate as
equivalent to the 'O' level certificate
required under the advertisement and under
the relevant service rules for the post of
ARO (Accounts) in respect of the selection
pursuant
to
the
advertisement
dated
19.07.2016.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 178
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 47749 of 2016

Smt. Shiv Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Girjesh Mishra, Pradeep Kumar, Rajesh
Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Nisheeth Yadav, Sudarshan Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a contractual appointee engaged under
Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya
(Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) has any vested right to
seek renewal/continuation of service after expiry
of the contractual term, and whether nonrenewal can be challenged on the ground of
arbitrariness or violation of Article 14.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Contractual Appointment - No
Right to Renewal - Contract ends by efflux of
time - Legitimate expectation not applicable -
Renewal is discretion of employer - No vested
or fundamental right to seek continuation -
Petition dismissed.
Held :
Appointment of the petitioner was made for one
session which was to be renewed every year on