# Amna Khatoon C/o Rajeeb Ahmad & Ors v. A.M.U. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 167
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 368 of 2021
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amna-khatoon-c-o-rajeeb-ahmad-ors-v-a-m-u-anr-53042
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Service Law - Appointment -
Ambiguity
in
Advertisement
-
ambiguous
expressions
like
"concerned/relevant/allied
subject"
-

Aligarh
Muslim
University's
recruitment to post of Assistant Professor
(Chemistry) - AMU used ambiguous expressions
like "concerned/relevant/allied subject" in the
advertisment - Supreme Court in Mohd.
Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University,
(2009) 4 SCC 555 has very specifically directed
that
the
University
shall
lay
down
the
qualification necessary for filling up the post
laying
down
exact
essential
qualification
indicating allied subject and subject stream
which is required to be mentioned for making
application for filling up said post - Writ petition
disposed of with direction to AMU to ensure
future
advertisements
carry
specific,
unambiguous qualifications to avoid prejudice
and exclusion of otherwise eligible candidates
(Para 15, 18)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

3 All. Amna Khatoon C/o Rajeeb Ahmad & Ors. Vs. A.M.U. & Anr.
167
applicants
would
acquire
importance and this Court finds that both
the accused-applicants never joined the
investigation which concluded in filing of a
charge sheet against them as an absconder
and again they are absconding from the
trial court despite knowledge of the
proceedings and thus are not entitled to
invoke the inherent powers of this Court for
seeking quashing of proceedings. They
cannot short circuit the legal system and
provision and thus gain advantage.

21. In view of the said facts and
total non cooperation of the applicants in
the
investigation,
vagueness
of
the
pleadings, the conduct of the applicants in
not joining the investigation and not cooperating therein due to which charge sheet
was submitted against them as absconders,
intentional efforts to avoid the courts orders
as would appear from the order of the
revisional court and the fact that charge
sheet is not being challenged on its merits
coupled with the fact that the order of
taking cognizance dated 01.3.2024 being
challenged in a revision which stood
dismissed on its merits, no ground for
interference is called for.

22. The present Criminal Misc.
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
---------
(2025) 3 ILRA 167
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 368 of 2021

Amna Khatoon C/o Rajeeb Ahmad & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
A.M.U. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Mohd. Aadil Siddiqui, Sri Tauseef Khan,
Sri Alibin Saif, Sri Zeeshan Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Abrar Ahmad, Sri Tirath Raj
Shukla, Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh

Civil Law - Service Law - Appointment -
Ambiguity
in
Advertisement
-
ambiguous
expressions
like
"concerned/relevant/allied
subject"
-

Aligarh
Muslim
University's
recruitment to post of Assistant Professor
(Chemistry) - AMU used ambiguous expressions
like "concerned/relevant/allied subject" in the
advertisment - Supreme Court in Mohd.
Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University,
(2009) 4 SCC 555 has very specifically directed
that
the
University
shall
lay
down
the
qualification necessary for filling up the post
laying
down
exact
essential
qualification
indicating allied subject and subject stream
which is required to be mentioned for making
application for filling up said post - Writ petition
disposed of with direction to AMU to ensure
future
advertisements
carry
specific,
unambiguous qualifications to avoid prejudice
and exclusion of otherwise eligible candidates
(Para 15, 18)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard S/Sri Alibin Saif and Zeeshan
Khan, learned advocates for petitioners, Sri
Tirath
Raj
Shukla,
learned
advocate
holding brief of Sri Shashank Shekhar
Singh, learned counsel for respondentAligarh Muslim University (for short
"A.M.U.").

2. Petitioners (Amma Khatoon, Dr.
Mohd. Azfar Shaida and Dr. Syed Md.
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Humayun Akhter) have approached this
Court in the year 2021 with a prayer that
they may be allowed to participate in a
selection process initiated in pursuance of
an Advertisement No. 4/2019(T) dated
03.07.2019 as well as in Advertisement No.
2/2020(T) dated 11.06.2020 issued by
A.M.U. contending that they are also
qualified for post of Lecturer (Chemistry)
having
a
qualification
of
M.Sc.
in
'Industrial Chemistry' which could be an
"allied
subject"
i.e.
an
essential
qualification for that post.

3. It is not disputed that earlier a
similar controversy arose in regard to an
earlier recruitment process conducted by
respondent-A.M.U. and matter reached
upto Supreme Court in a case of Mohd.
Sohrab
Khan
vs.
Aligarh
Muslim
University and others, (2009) 4 SCC 555
wherein it was finally held that Master
Degree holder in Industrial Chemistry
would not be better suited for post of
Lecturer (Chemistry) without there being
any
specific
declaration
in
the
advertisement to this effect. In that regard,
it was further observed that post advertised
was meant to be filled up by a person
belonging to pure Chemistry stream,
without any specific clause that a person
holding M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry would
also be eligible or could be suited more.
Relevant part of judgment is quoted below
:-

"21. Learned counsel appearing
for the University on our enquiry fairly
stated before us that the aforesaid post
which was advertised to be filled up in the
aforesaid manner is at present vacant and
the same is being manned by appointing a
Guest Lecturer who holds a Master's degree
in Pure Chemistry.

22. If the requirement was to
have a person having Master's degree in
Industrial Chemistry, then in that event the
post would have been manned through a
Guest
Lecturer
from
the
Industrial
Chemistry stream. Therefore, it cannot be
accepted that the person holding a Master's
degree in Industrial Chemistry would be
better suited for appointment as against the
said post.

23. The
post
advertised
was
meant for a person belonging to Pure
Chemistry Department for if it was
otherwise, then it would have been so
mentioned in the advertisement itself that a
person holding a Master's degree in
Industrial Chemistry should only apply or
that a person holding such a degree could
also apply along with other persons. It was
not so mentioned in the advertisement and,
therefore, except for Merajuddin Ahmad,
no
other
degree-holder
in
Industrial
Chemistry had applied for becoming a
candidate as against the aforesaid post."

4. In above referred judgment, it
was also directed that :-

"University to lay down the
qualification necessary for filling up the
aforesaid post. The University shall now
advertise the said post by laying down
exact essential qualification indicating the
particular
subject
and
subjects-stream
which is required to be possessed for
making an application to fill up the said
post."

5. It appears that A.M.U. has not
understood the direction and has not
followed above referred judgment in its
true spirit and without making any specific
clarification for purpose of appointment of
Assistant
Professor
(Chemistry)
in
subsequent advertisement i.e. whether
3 All. Amna Khatoon C/o Rajeeb Ahmad & Ors. Vs. A.M.U. & Anr.
169
M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry would be an
equal eligibility or not and instead of
having used some ambiguous words i.e. "A
Master's degree with 55% marks (or an
equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever
the grading system is followed) in a
concerned/relevant/allied subject from an
Indian University, or an equivalent degree
from an accredited foreign university" in
the advertisement in question. The words
"concerned/relevant/allied
subject
may
have
different
meaning
in
different
circumstances.

6.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
learned advocates for petitioners have
submitted that for purpose of Assistant
Professor in Chemistry, degree of M.Sc. in
Industrial Chemistry would fall within
"allied subject".

7.
Learned
advocates
further
submitted that instead of removing above
referred ambiguity, the A.M.U. published a
Corrigendum dated 05.11.2019 stating that
in view of Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra),
Industrial Chemistry cannot be equalled
with M.Sc. degree. For reference, relevant
part of Corrigendum dated 05.11.2019 is
quoted below :-

Corrigendum

Reference: Local Advertisement No.
12/ Poly/2019-2020 Dated: 23.10.2019

The
following
changes
in
the
qualification in above notification for the
post of Assistant Professor Contractual
(Chemistry) may kindly be noted.

As
per
the
Judgment
of
the
Honourable Supreme Court in the civil
appeal No. 1130 of 2009, regarding the
course structure of graduate and post
graduate
classes
in
Chemistry
and
Industrial Chemistry, the Honourable Court
came to the conclusion that the courses of
the two subjects are quite different and
distinct and in the light of the findings it is
also recorded that the degree of M.Sc. in
Industrial Chemistry cannot be equated
with the degree of M.Sc. in Chemistry.

It is therefore notified that the
candidates with qualification M.Sc. in
Industrial Chemistry are not eligible for the
post of Assistant Professor-Contractual
(Chemistry)
in
Applied
Science
&
Humanities
Section
University
Polytechnic-AMU.

8.
Learned
advocates
further
submitted
that
ambiguity
further
perpetuated and they have referred a
document annexed in counter affidavit filed
by the University being CA-15 i.e. Minutes
of Meeting held on 14.07.2021 to discuss
issue relating to Industrial Chemistry as an
"allied subject" in the discipline of
Chemistry for recruitment of Assistant
Professor in the University and it was held
that "Industrial Chemistry is an allied
subject for the post of Assistant Professor
in the University Polytechnic. However, the
candidates for allied subject will only be
considered,
if
the
candidates
from
concerned subject are not available and the
same
will
be
examined
by
the
competent/relevant body empowered to
determine the eligibility of the candidates
prior to the selection. This will only apply
to
the
post
of
Assistant
Professor
(Chemistry) in the University Polytechnic."
Above decision has caused more prejudice
to petitioners and both decisions were not
only self-contrary but arbitrary also.

9. Learned counsel for respondentUniversity has submitted that judgment of
Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra) was followed
and ambiguity, if any, was cleared and
M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry was declared to
be an "allied subject" for consideration on
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
post of Lecturer (Chemistry). He further
submitted that in pursuance of Adv. No.
2/2022(T) dated 03.05.2022 and 4/2022(T)
dated 06.08.2022, a Selection Committee
met on 06.12.2024 and two candidates
were appointed on the post of Lecturer
(Chemistry) and since their appointments
are not under challenge in this writ petition
and they are also not a party-respondents,
therefore, no relief could be granted to
petitioners in this writ petition.

10. In reply to above submissions,
learned advocates for petitioners submitted
that law in this regard is well settled that
since appointments of selected candidates
(two in numbers) are not under challenge,
therefore, present writ petition may not be
maintainable,
however,
they
further
submitted that a direction be passed to
A.M.U. to clear the position as and when a
new advertisement is published, so that
petitioners and similarly situated candidates
may apply for same, that it should be
specifically
mentioned
whether
M.Sc.
Industrial Chemistry is an eligibility for
post of Lecturer Chemistry and further
arbitrary direction that candidature of such
candidates would be considered in last
should be specifically removed.

11.
I have
considered
above
submissions and perused the record.

12. As referred above, Supreme
Court in the judgement of Mohd. Sohrab
Khan, (supra) has dealt with an issue
whether for appointment of post of
Lecturer (Chemistry), A.M.U. a candidate
having M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry
would be eligible for the post of Lecturer
M.Sc. (Chemistry) or not and whether
without any specific declaration in the
advertisement, such candidates would be
considered
more
suitable
and,
after
consideration, action of A.M.U. was
criticized and an direction was passed that
in future advertisement should clearly
reflect
the
eligibility
without
any
ambiguity.

13. However, it appears that
A.M.U. has not followed the dictum passed
by Supreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan
(supra) and perpetuated the ambiguity in
subsequent advertisements though they
have tried to clear the position later on that,
on one hand, they have adopted that M.Sc.
Industrial Chemistry would fall within
"allied subject", therefore, treated it to be
an eligibility for consideration for the post
of Lecturer (Chemistry), however, an
arbitrary decision was taken that their
candidature will be considered in the last if
the candidates having M.Sc. (Chemistry)
were not available or not found suitable.

14. Said action on face of it is
arbitrary. They have published subsequent
advertisement and described eligibility of
having Master's degree with 55% marks in
a concerned/relevant/allied subject without
making any clarification that whether
M.Sc. Industrial Chemistry would be allied
subject for purpose of Chemistry or not,
therefore, it was possible that many
candidates
having
M.Sc.
Industrial
Chemistry have chosen not to participate.

15. Supreme Court in Mohd.
Sohrab Khan (supra) has very specifically
directed the University shall lay down the
qualification necessary for filling up the
post
laying
down
exact
essential
qualification indicating allied subject and
subject stream which is required to be
mentioned for making application for
filling up said post, however, such dictum
was not followed and ambiguity was,
therefore,
repeated.
3 All. Dilip Kumar Singh Rajpoot & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171
16. At this stage, Court takes note
that during pendency of this writ petition
i.e. for last 5 years, much water has flown
and that posts have already been filled up
and since their selection are not under
challenge, therefore, relief sought in
present
writ
petition
is
rendered
infructuous.

17. However, Court takes note of
last submission of learned counsel for
petitioners that a direction be passed that
not only judgment of Supreme Court be
followed in letter and spirit but such
ambiguity may not be repeated.

18. In aforesaid circumstances, this
writ petition is disposed of with a direction
that judgment of Supreme Court in Mohd.
Sohrab Khan (supra) shall be followed in
its letter and spirit. Registrar, A.M.U. shall
remain cautious in future while publishing
advertisement that it may not to create
ambiguity but such ambiguity should be
removed i.e. words shall be chosen
carefully and instead of ambiguous words
"concerned/relevant/allied
subject",
the
University must specifically mention about
qualification so that all eligible candidates
may participate in advertisement and no
one be left prejudiced.

19. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 171
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 634 of 2025
Dilip Kumar Singh Rajpoot & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Radha Kant Ojha (Sr.
Adv.), Sri Anurag Tripathi, Sri Shevendu
Ojha, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri Seemant
Singh, Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, Sri
Phool Chnadra Singh, Sri Bhanu Pratap
Singh, Sri Amit Kumar Tiwari, Sri Rajesh
Kumar Verma, Sri Jainendra Pandey, Sri
Kabir Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Smt. Archana Singh, Sri Sanjay Kumar
Singh, Sri V.P. Singh Kachwa, Sri Jai
Prakash Singh, Sri Shashi Prakash Rai, Sri
Atul Kumar Shahi, Sri Abhishek Srivastava,
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Nagwanshi, A.C.S.C., Smt.
Stati Malviya

अ) सेवा नियम - शिक्षा िीनि - संवैधानिक मामले -
िैक्षणिक
संसाधि
व्यक्तियों
(ARP-
Academic
Resource Person) के चयि और काययकाल से संबंधधि
वववाद - ARP के चयि प्रक्रिया और काययकाल की वैधिा -
संवैधानिक अधधकारों का उल्लंघि - भारिीय संववधाि -
अिुच्छेद 14, 16 , उत्तर प्रदेि बेशसक शिक्षा अधधनियम -
समाििा का अधधकार - युक्तियुति वर्गीकरि - िीनिर्गि
निियों में न्यानयक हस्िक्षेप की सीमा - िीनिर्गि निियों में
न्यायालय िभी हस्िक्षेप करेर्गा जब वे मिमािे, िकयहीि या
संवैधानिक प्रावधािों के ववपरीि हों। (पैरा - 26,27)

याचिकाकर्ाा उत्तर प्रदेश के विभिन्न विद्यालयों में
सहायक अध्यापक के पद पर कायारर् हैं - ARP के रूप में
3 िर्ा र्क सेिा दे िुके हैं - शासनादेश ददनाांक
22.10.2019 के र्हर् ARP के पदों का पुनर्ाठन ककया
र्या - जिसमें नए ियन प्रकिया के भलए पूिा ARP को
अयोग्य घोवर्र् कर ददया र्या । (पैरा 1, 10, 17)

नििीि: याचिकाकर्ााओां का ARP पद पर पुनः ियन के
भलए अयोग्य घोवर्र् ककया िाना सांिैधाननक या विचधक