# Ajay Pratap Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 744
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-06-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31868 of 2014
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala, Ram Surat Ram (Maurya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-pratap-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42968
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Eligibilityinformation given by candidates-online as
well off line application form-Combined
State Upper Subordinate Services(Regular
Recruitment) Examination 2013-column 13
provides-special
qualification-petitioner
given post graduate-while for Designated
officer
minimum
cut
off
of
general
2 All] Ajay Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
745
candidate if 222 and petitioner get 272
marks-column 20 being confusive-ractified
in subsequent advertisement 2014-heldpetitioner entitled to participate in main
examination for post of Designated officerconsequential direction issued.

Held: Para-15 & 16

## Text

744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ltd. 2013(2) AWC 1795, has, while
considering a case where the facts were such
that the landowner was dispossessed without
resorting to any law of Land Acquisition Act,
held that such person would not be entitled to
restoration of possession as full-fledged
residential colony had been constructed on
the land in question but directed the
respondents to make an award under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
treating section 4 notification to have been
issued as on the date of the judgment of the
Supreme Court which was 12.2.2013. In the
present case, if the land is treated to have
been acquired as on date for the purposes of
valuation for payment of compensation, it
would have to be assessed under the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
And Transparency In Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
However, keeping in view that the valuation
of 1989 sq. meters of land of the petitioner
has been assessed at Rs. 37,79,100/- by the
report dated 31.8.2008 prepared by the
respondent-authorities and the petitioner does
not object to such valuation, we would not be
inclined to remit the matter for further
valuation of the property as more than ten
years have already lapsed since the petitioner
has been deprived of his property without
being paid any compensation and directing
for further proceeding for valuation, in the
aforesaid facts, would be further delaying the
determination and payment of compensation.

15. Accordingly, we direct the
respondents to pay compensation of Rs.
37,79,100/- to the petitioner along with
12% interest from 31.10.2008 till the date
of payment, if the payment is made within
three months from today, and if not, then
the respondents shall be liable to pay
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from
31.10.2008 till the date of actual payment.
In the facts of this case, since the
petitioner has been running from pillar to
post for payment of compensation of his
land which has been taken over and
utilized by the respondents more than a
decade
ago,
and
that
too
without
following any procedure of law, we are of
the opinion that the petitioner would also
be entitled for payment of cost, which this
Court assesses at Rs. 50,000/-. The said
amount shall also be paid to the petitioner
within the aforesaid period of three
months.

16. The writ petition stands allowed
to the extent indicated above.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.06.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM SURAT RAM
(MAURYA), J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31868 of 2014
along with W.P. No. 32259 of 2014, W.P. No.
32264 of 2014, and W.P. No. 32292 of 2014

Ajay Pratap Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dr. D.K. Tiwari, Sri Shashi Kant Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Sri Ajay
Kumar

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Eligibilityinformation given by candidates-online as
well off line application form-Combined
State Upper Subordinate Services(Regular
Recruitment) Examination 2013-column 13
provides-special
qualification-petitioner
given post graduate-while for Designated
officer
minimum
cut
off
of
general
2 All] Ajay Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
745
candidate if 222 and petitioner get 272
marks-column 20 being confusive-ractified
in subsequent advertisement 2014-heldpetitioner entitled to participate in main
examination for post of Designated officerconsequential direction issued.

Held: Para-15 & 16
15. We find that column no.20 does not
mention about specific posts. From a
physical
demonstration
given
by
the
Commission for filling up an application
form online before the Court we find that
when a candidate clicks 'Yes' in column
no.20, a window opens wherein other
essential
qualification
such
as
Law
graduate, Commerce graduate or post
graduate in Chemistry etc. is asked for.
These qualifications are nothing else but
repetition of the information sought for in
column no.19. The Court further, noticed
that while clicking 'Yes' in column no.20 the
window which opens does not mention the
specific
posts
for
which
specified
qualifications were asked for. We are of the
opinion that the column no.20 has no
relation with the specified post, for which
specified qualification was prescribed in Sl.
No. 13 of the advertisement. The Court also
notices that this ambiguity was rectified by
the
Commission
while
issuing
the
advertisement in the year 2014, wherein
column no. 20 indicates "specified post
details with other essential qualification".

16. In the light of this ambiguity
contained in column no. 20 of the
application form, the Court is of the
opinion that the benefit of this ambiguity
is required to be given to the petitioners.
Since the petitioners are eligible for the
post Designated Officer and they have
obtained more marks than the cut-off
marks depicted by the Commission, the
Court
is
of
the
opinion
that
the
candidates being eligible should be
permitted
to
appear
in
the
Mains
Examination, which is going to be held
on 01.07.2014. The Court has been
informed that the last date for deposit of
the fee for the Main Examination is
14.06.2014
and
the
last
date
for
submission of the form is 23.06.2014.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission,
Allahabad
issued
an
advertisement dated 23.03.2013 inviting
applications
for
various
posts
for
Combined
State/Upper
Subordinate
Services (Gen.Rectt.) Examination-2013
and Combined State/Upper Subordinate
Services (Physically Handicapped Special
Rectt.)Examination-2013.

2. In this advertisement, applications
were invited for several posts such as Dy.
Collector,
Naib
Tehsildar,
Treasury
Officer/Accounts Officer etc. There were
some specific posts for which specific
qualifications
were
prescribed.
The
minimum qualification for various posts was
that the candidate should a graduate but for
some specific posts specific qualifications
were prescribed. For example, for the post of
"Sub Registrar and Asstt. P.O. (Transport)",
the essential qualification was Law graduate.
Similarly, for the post of "Designated
Officer" the essential qualification was Post
Graduate Degree in Chemistry as one of the
subjects. The petitioners contends that they
are eligible to apply for the Executive posts
as well as for the post of Designated Officer.

3. The controversy in the present writ
petition relates to the post of Designated
Officer, which is a special post for which
special qualification was prescribed under Sl.
No. 13 of the advertisement. For facility,
relevant portion of Sl. No. 13 is extracted
hereunder:

"13. Educational Qualification : The
candidate must possess Bachelors Degree of
any recognised University or equivalent
qualification upto the last date for receipt of
application. This should be mentioned by the
candidate in the relevant column of their
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application form but for some posts specific
qualifications have been prescribed of which
the details are given below.

Designated Officer (1) Post Graduate
Degree in Chemistry as one of the
subjects from a University established by
law in India or a qualification recognised
by the Government as equivalent thereto."

4. The procedure pursuant to the said
advertisement is that there is a preliminary
examination
followed
by
a
written
examination and then an interview. The
advertisement indicated that the candidates
could apply through online mode or through
offline mode. The petitioners in writ petition
nos. 31868 of 2014, 32259 of 2014 and
32264 of 2014 have applied by using the
online mode. Under column no. 19 in the on
line mode, the application form states "Are
You Post Graduate?" for which the
petitioners said 'Yes' and when clicked on the
'Yes' option, a window opened asking the
candidate to fill the relevant subject. The
petitioners, being a Post Graduate in
Chemistry, accordingly filled up that column
indicating that they are Post Graduate in
Chemistry. Serial No. 20 of the application
form is headed by the words "Other Essential
Qualification". Most of the petitioners
pressed the option 'No', meaning thereby that
they had no other essential qualification
except one of the petitioners who indicated
that the said petitioner was a Law graduate.

5. The examinations were held on
26.06.2013 and the results were declared
on
23.05.2014.
The
cut-off
marks
declared was as under:

6. For the General Category, cut-off
marks was 265, for the Scheduled Caste,
cut-off marks was 251, for the Scheduled
Tribe cut-off marks was 222 and for
Other Backward Classes the cut-off marks
was 261.

7. For the post of Designated Officer
the cut-off marks for the General
Category was 222, for the Scheduled
Caste cut-off marks was 198, for the
Other Backward Classes cut-off marks
was 222 and the Female Category cut-off
marks was 209.

8. The petitioner no.1 in Writ
Petition No. 31868 of 2014 obtained 272
marks and petitioner no.2 of this writ
petition obtained 219 marks. Petitioner in
Writ Petition No. 32259 of 2014 obtained
264 marks. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.
32264 of 2014 obtained 252 marks.
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32292 of
2014 obtained 258 marks.

9. According to the petitioner no.1
in Writ Petition No. 31868 of 2014, he
obtained more than the cut-off marks for
the Executive Posts but has not been
called to appear in the examination for the
post of Designated Officer. The second
petitioner in the same writ petition having
qualifications
for
the
post
of
the
Designated Officer and eligible to appear
in the mains examination for the post of
Designated Officer has not been called to
appear in the final examination and, being
aggrieved, has filed the present writ
petition. Similar relief has been claimed
by other petitioners.

10. The contention of the petitioners
is that for certain specific post such as
Designated Officer qualifications were
prescribed, which the petitioner indicated
in column no.19 and that column no.20,
which
relates
to
other
essential
qualification did not relate specifically for
these specified posts and, accordingly, the
2 All] Ajay Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
747
petitioner indicated 'Nil' option while
filling that column.

11. On the other hand, the stand of
the Commission is, that column no.20
relates to specific posts, which requires
specific qualifications and since the
petitioners did not fill up the relevant
column they are not entitled to be
considered for the post of Designated
Officer.

12. The petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 32292 of 2014 had applied through
off line mode and, in that form also,
column no.20 relates to "other essential
qualifications". The Court finds that the
application form indicated 04 options,
which the said petitioner had filled but
could not fill the qualification of having
Post Graduate Degree in Chemistry on
account of fact that no further columns
were made available in the application
form to fill the extra qualification which
he
possessed
in
addition
to
the
qualifications which he had filled up.

13. In the light of the assertions and
contentions of the parties, we have heard
Dr. D.K.Tiwari, Sri R.N.Tiwari, Sri
Santosh Kumar Pandey and Sri Akhilesh
Kumar Singh for the petitioners and Sri
C.B. Yadav, the learned Additional
Advocate General along with Sri Ajay
Kumar for the Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission.

14.

Serial
No.
13
of
the
advertisement indicates that for some
specific posts, specific qualifications have
been prescribed. For example, for the post
of Sub Registrar, the specific qualification
is that the candidate should be a Law
graduate. Similarly, for the post of
Designated
Officer,
the
specific
qualification is Post Graduate Degree in
Chemistry. The petitioners have indicated
this qualification of having a Post
Graduate Degree in Chemistry while
filling up column no.19. The contention
of the respondents that the column no.20
relates to these specific posts cannot be
accepted. Heading of column no.20 is
"Other
Essential
Qualification".
The
heading does not indicate that it is related
to
specified
posts
having
specified
qualifications and consequently, the Court
finds that there is an ambiguity in column
no.20, which has confused the candidates.
If the Commission was asking the
candidate
to
specify
specific
qualifications for specific posts, then a
dedicated column should have been made
for that purpose. For example, column
no.20 should have been headed as
"Specific Post details with specific
qualification".

15. We find that column no.20 does
not mention about specific posts. From a
physical demonstration given by the
Commission for filling up an application
form online before the Court we find that
when a candidate clicks 'Yes' in column
no.20, a window opens wherein other
essential
qualification
such
as
Law
graduate, Commerce graduate or post
graduate in Chemistry etc. is asked for.
These qualifications are nothing else but
repetition of the information sought for in
column no.19. The Court further, noticed
that while clicking 'Yes' in column no.20
the window which opens does not mention
the specific posts for which specified
qualifications were asked for. We are of the
opinion that the column no.20 has no
relation with the specified post, for which
specified qualification was prescribed in Sl.
No. 13 of the advertisement. The Court also
notices that this ambiguity was rectified by
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
Commission
while
issuing
the
advertisement in the year 2014, wherein
column no. 20 indicates "specified post
details with other essential qualification".

16. In the light of this ambiguity
contained in column no. 20 of the
application form, the Court is of the
opinion that the benefit of this ambiguity
is required to be given to the petitioners.
Since the petitioners are eligible for the
post Designated Officer and they have
obtained more marks than the cut-off
marks depicted by the Commission, the
Court is of the opinion that the candidates
being eligible should be permitted to
appear in the Mains Examination, which
is going to be held on 01.07.2014. The
Court has been informed that the last date
for deposit of the fee for the Main
Examination is 14.06.2014 and the last
date for submission of the form is
23.06.2014.

17. In the light of the aforesaid, we
allow the writ petitions.

18. A writ of mandamus is issued to
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Service
Commission, Allahabad directing them to
include the name of the petitioners in the list
for the post of Designated Officer. The
Commission is further directed to accept
their
fee
and
forms
for
the
Main
Examination. Since the last date of deposit of
fee is 14.06.2014 and time is short, we,
accordingly, direct the Commission to extend
the date for deposit of fee by 21.06.2014.
The forms can be accepted by 23.06.2014.

19. In the circumstances of the case
parties shall bear their own cost.

20. A certified copy of this order be
made available to the learned counsel for
the parties by Monday 16.06.2014 on
payment of usual charges.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35775 of 2013

Swaroop Chand Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Mehta, Sri Saurabh Kumar, Sri
P.S. Gupta
Sri Ravi Kant, Sri Ram Raj Prajapati, Sri
Rakesh Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, C.S.C.
Sri Vivek Shandilya (Addl. C.S.C.)

Constitution Of India, Art.-341(1)&(2)-
Whether 'Kasera' is sub caste of Shilpkar
in category of scheduled case? held-'No'-
Law laid down by Division Bench in Vijay
Shankar case is not correct law.

Held: Para-26&30
26. On the aforesaid findings, we decide
the Question No.1 to the effect that
'Kasera' is not a sub caste of 'Shilpkar'.
The persons belonging to 'Kasera' or any
other sub caste, which were included in
Note 4 of Appendix-A of Part-VIII of the
list
of
the
Constitution
(Scheduled
Castes) Order 1950 are not entitled to
get
certificates
to
belong
to
the
Scheduled Caste.

30. On the aforesaid discussion, we also
answer the question No.2 in negative,
and hold that the judgment dated
23.12.2011, rendered by the Lucknow