# Arvind Kumar v. Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Alld. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1956
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-13
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 16106 of 2017
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-kumar-v-registrar-general-high-court-of-judicature-at-alld-anr-44689
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. U.P. District Court Service Rules, 2013 -
Higher qualification clearly indicates or
presupposes
acquisition
of
lesser
qualification
prescribed
for
a
post
-
Petitioner duly qualified for the post of
Junior Assistant and was appointed vide
letter of appointment dated 01.10.2015Petitioner's services were terminated vide
impugned order, pursuant to the resolution
dated 26.08.2016, on the ground that he
did not have CCC certificate issued by
DOECC Society (NIETLIT). Allowing the
present petition, the High Court Held-Order
was passed without application of mind and
without considering the fact that petitioner
possessed
qualification
equivalent
to/higher than the CCC Certificate. (Para 14)

Writ petition is against the order dated
07.01.2017,
passed
by
District
Judge,
Chandauli
Writ Petition allowed (E-4)

Precedent followed: -

## Text

1956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority while disagreeing with the
findings of the enquiry officer had simply
recorded that since PW-1 knew that
opium solution was with the petitioner
who had offered it to him coupled with
the fact that the Constable Shailesh was
admitted in the hospital and died on
account of some unknown case of
poisoning, an inference can be drawn
about involvement of the petitioner in
offering him opium solution.

23. As noted above, having gone
through the oral evidences on record, there is
no doubt to the fact that there was no direct
evidence against the petitioner that he had
consumed opium with the deceased Shailesh
or that he offered opium to Shailesh. No one
had seen them consuming opium together or
even sitting together. It is, thus, a case of no
evidence. The disciplinary authority has
simply acted on surmises and conjectures to
create a hypothesis of involvement of the
petitioner in the death of Constable Shailesh.
Mere assumption of any situation on
hypothetical criteria without any supportive
evidence (even circumstantial) would not be
proof even on the principles of preponderance
of probabilities. The said principle does not
give leverage to the disciplinary authority to
create a hypothesis by its own imagination
without any evidence. The reason given by
the disciplinary authority in the order
impugned of holding the petitioner guilty is
nothing but creation of his own imagination.
As this is a case of no evidence, the entire
decision making process culminating in the
decision of the disciplinary authority suffers
from perversity and arbitrariness. The order of
punishment awarded by the disciplinary
authority, therefore, cannot be sustained. The
same is hereby quashed.

24. The appellate authority has simply
rejected the appeal on the ground that the
procedure laid down for departmental
enquiry had been followed and there was no
miscarriage
of
justice.
Further
the
punishment awarded was commensurate
with the gravity of offence. It has simply
overlooked the requirement of opportunity to
be given by the disciplinary authority before
recording the finding of guilt when the
petitioner was exonerated in the enquiry i.e.
charges against him were not proved by the
enquiry officer.

25. The order of the appellate
authority, therefore, is set aside.

26. The petitioner is entitled to
reinstatement
with
all
consequential
benefits and back wages for the period of
discontinuance,
inasmuch
as,
the
employers have illegally restrained him
from working by proceeding in an
arbitrary manner.

27.

Subject
to
the
above
observations and directions, the writ
petition is allowed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1956

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ A No. 16106 of 2017

Arvind Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Registrar General High Court of
Judicature at Alld. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Adarsh
Bhushan.
2 All. Arvind Kumar Vs Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Alld. & Anr.
1957
Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri Manish Goyal, Sri Ashish Mishra.

A. U.P. District Court Service Rules, 2013 -
Higher qualification clearly indicates or
presupposes
acquisition
of
lesser
qualification
prescribed
for
a
post
-
Petitioner duly qualified for the post of
Junior Assistant and was appointed vide
letter of appointment dated 01.10.2015Petitioner's services were terminated vide
impugned order, pursuant to the resolution
dated 26.08.2016, on the ground that he
did not have CCC certificate issued by
DOECC Society (NIETLIT). Allowing the
present petition, the High Court Held-Order
was passed without application of mind and
without considering the fact that petitioner
possessed
qualification
equivalent
to/higher than the CCC Certificate. (Para 14)

Writ petition is against the order dated
07.01.2017,
passed
by
District
Judge,
Chandauli
Writ Petition allowed (E-4)

Precedent followed: -

1. Jyoti K.K. & ors. Vs Kerala P.S.C. & ors.,
(2010) (15) SCC 596 (Para 8)
2. Sanjay Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & 2 ors., dated
06.05.2019 in Special Appeal (Defective) No.
679 of 2017 (Para 12, 15 & 16)
3. District Judge Azamgarh & anr. Vs Sandeep
Kumar Chauhan & anr., dated 16.05.2019 in
Special Appeal No. 1265 of 2018 (Para 12, 17)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
learned Standing Counsel for respondent
No.3.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition with the prayer to
quash the order dated 07.01.2017 passed
by
the
District
Judge
Chandauli/respondent No.2 (Annexure
No.16 to the writ petition) with a further
prayer to direct the respondent No.2 to
reinstate the petitioner in service along
with the arrears of salary and other
consequential benefits.

3. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that an advertisement was
issued by the Registrar General, High
Court
of
Judicature
at
Allahabad/respondent
No.1
inviting
applications from eligible candidates in
order to fill up Group C Cadre Posts by
direct recruitment in District Courts
situated
in
State
of
U.P.
The
advertisement in question also includes
the post of Junior Assistant and Paid
Apprentice in Grade Pay of Rs.520020200/-. The essential qualification for
appointment on the post of Junior
Assistant was intermediate with special
knowledge of Urdu and Hindi along with
Computer Concept Course (hereinafter
referred
to
as
"CCC")
issued
by
DOEACC Society and 25/30 words per
minute for Hindi/English Type writing on
Computer,
Arithmetic,
Menstruation,
Elementary
Land
Surveying
and
Mapping.

4. The petitioner applied for the post
of Junior Assistant under Scheduled Caste
Category. Admit Card was issued and the
written
examination
was
held
on
18.10.2014. The petitioner duly qualified
the same and thereafter the petitioner was
subjected to computer type test. In the
result computer type test, the petitioner
was found duly selected. Thereafter, the
petitioner was participated in Hindi and
English Typing Test on 24.05.2015. The
final result was published in which the
petitioner
was
finally
selected
for
1958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointment on the post of Junior
Assistant and he was appointed on the
aforesaid post in District Chandauli by
respondent
No.2
vide
letter
of
appointment dated 01.10.2015. Thereafter
the petitioner joined his duties and started
working.

5. The Educational qualification of
the petitioner are intermediate, B.A.,
M.A. in Hindi. Apart from the same, the
petitioner also possessed professional
qualification in Computer Education i.e.
Diploma in Computer Application from
Janta Computer Education Centre and
also a Diploma in Computer Application
from Community Development through
Polytechnic Chandauli, Government of
India Project, Chandauli Polytechnic
Chandauli. It is contended in paragraph
16 of the writ petition that Director of
Judicial Training and Research Institute
(JTRI) has invited the newly appointed
Class III District Court Employees for a
computer
Training
Programme
for
17.10.2016 and 18.10.2016 at JARI
Lucknow vide order dated 21.09.2016.
The petitioner duly participated in the
aforesaid
training
programme
and
completed it successfully. A certificate in
this regard was issued to the petitioner,
copy of which is appended as Annexure
No.7 to the writ petition. A circular was
issued by the respondent No.1 on
06.01.2018 by which certain clarifications
were
issued
with
regard
to
the
requirement of Computer qualification
mentioned in the advertisement, i.e.,
possession of CCC certificate awarded by
the DOEACC Society. Subsequently
another circular dated 16.1.2016 was
issued whereby information was sought
for
regarding
details
of
computer
qualification
possessed
by
the
selected/appointed candidates from each
District Judgeship. A resolution was
issued by the respondent No.1 addressed
to all the District Judges of U.P. with
regard to the requisite qualification, i.e.,
CCC Certificate.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid
resolution, the respondent No.2 issued a
notice dated 31.8.2016 to the petitioner
demanding CCC certificate issued by
DOECC
Society
(NIETLIT)
on
02.09.2016.The petitioner duly submitted
his reply stated therein that he possessed
computer qualification equivalent to CCC
certificate. Another notice was issued by
the respondent No.2 on 09.09.2016 stating
that the CCC certificate issued by
DOEACC (NIETLIT) is mandatory for
post of Junior Assistant as has been
stipulated
in
the
resolution
dated
26.08.2016.
The
petitioner
again
submitted its reply on 24.09.2016 stating
therein that he possessed a diploma from
Polytechnic, Chandauli which is within
the purview of Government of India
Project and the same is equivalent to CCC
Certificate issued by DOEACC Society
(NIETLIT). The petitioner was also direct
to present in the office of respondent No.2
on 3.10.2016 along with certificate of
computer qualification. It is contended
that
without
considering
the
reply
submitted by the petitioner, order dated
7.1.2017 was passed by the respondent
No.2 terminating his services pursuant to
the resolution dated 26.08.2016. The
petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition challenging the aforesaid order
dated 7.1.2017.

7. It is contended by Sri Adarsh
Bhushan,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner that the order impugned dated
7.1.2017 is wholly unreasoned order and
fails to accord any consideration to the
2 All. Arvind Kumar Vs Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Alld. & Anr.
1959
reply submitted by the petitioner in response
of show cause notices issued by the
respondent No.2. It is further argued that
insofar as the CCC certificate issued by the
DOEACC Society (NIETLIT) is concerned,
the same is 80 hours basic course of study and
in comparison thereto, the course content of
the petitioner pertaining to the computer has
been far wider. It is further argued that the
order impugned has been passed in violation
of principles of natural justice as no
opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been
given to the petitioner at any point of time
before the impugned order was passed. It is
further argued that the impugned order has
been passed without application of mind and
against the provisions of U.P. District Court
Service Rules, 2013. It is further argued that
the computer qualification possessed by the
petitioner is equivalent to CCC Certificate
issued by the DOEACC Society (NIETLIT).
It is further argued that the qualification
possessed by the petitioner is much higher
than the CCC certificate issued by the
DOEACC Society (NIETLIT). The petitioner
cannot be non-suited on the ground that he
does not have a particular certificate which is
very basic qualification in the knowledge of
computer operation.

8. Sri Adarsh Bhushan learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon a
judgement of the Supreme Court in the
case of 2010 (15) SCC 596 (Jyoti K.K.
and Others Vs.Kerala Public Service
Commission and others). The Supreme
Court in the aforesaid case was pleased to
hold that higher qualification must clearly
indicate or presupposes the acquisition of
lower qualification prescribed for that
post in order to attract that part of the
rules to the effect that such of those
higher qualification which presupposes
the acquisition of lower qualification
prescribed for the post.

9. In the counter affidavit filed by
Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents, it
is contended that the High Court of
Judicature
at
Allahabad
vide
Advertisement
No.01/Sub.
Court/Category "C"/Clerical Cadre/2004
advertised the Uttar Pradesh Civil Court
Staff Centralized Recruitment Scheme,
2014 calling for the post of Junior
Assistant and Paid Apprentice for various
vacancies in different Judgeships in the
State of Uttar Pradesh. The essential
qualifications prescribed in the said
advertisement was as follows:-

"2.
ESSENTIAL
QUALIFICATIONS:

The Applicant must possess
minimum essential qualification for all
the posts on the last date of submission of
the on-line application form for the
following posts:-

Sl.
Category
Posts ("C"
Cadre
Posts)
Essential
Qualificatio
n
Experience

1
Junior
Assistant
(Amin
Grade-II
Category
"C"/ Copyist
(Civil
&
Police Case
Diaries/Assi
stt. Account
Clerk/
Additional
Clerk/ Court
Clerk/
Admin
Clerk/
Writer
&
Runner/Typi
st, etc Clerkcum-Typist
Category
"C")
Intermediate
with Special
Knowledge
of Urdu and
Hindi along
with a CCC
certificate
issued
by
DOEACC
Society and
25/30 words
per
minute
for
Hindi/
English
Typewriting
on
Computer,
Arithmetic,
mensuration
, elementary
land
surveying
N.A.
1960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
mapping,
Order
XXVIof Act
No.
V
of
1908
and
Rules
(Civil)
relating
to
the
work
and
duties
of the Junior
Assistant.
Note:
For
the post of
Amin
Grade-II,
only
those
candidates
will
be
considered
who
have
passed their
Intermediate
examination
s
with
Mathematic
s as one of
the subject.
2
Paid
Apprentices
Intermediate
with
CCC
certificate
issued
by
DOEACC
Society and
25/30 words
per
minute
for
Hindi/
English
Typewriting
on
Computer.

N.A.

10. Thus, for both the posts Junior
Assistant
and
Paid
Apprentice,
the
minimum
qualification
of
computer
course to be possessed by the applicant
was a ''CCC' Certificate issued by the
DOEACC Society (apart from other
qualifications) on the last date of
submission of the application form i.e.
30/09/2014. It is further contended that
the services of the paid apprentice of the
Subordinate Court are governed by the
U.P. District Court Service Rules, 2013;
Schedule-B of the said Rules provides the
essential qualifications for the post in the
Cadre. A perusal of the said schedule
would show that the minimum essential
qualification prescribed for the post of
Junior Assistant, amongst other, includes
''CCC' Certificate issued by DEOACC
Society, as such it is submitted that the
statutory provision which govern the
services
of
the
employees
of
the
subordinate court, unequivocally provided
that the candidate should have a ''CCC'
Certificate issued by DOEACC Society,
as a minimum essential qualification.

11. It is further contended that the
last date of filling up the online
application form was 30.09.2014 and as
per the essential qualifications prescribed
in the advertisement, the applicant must
possesses
the
minimum
essential
qualification
on
the
last
date
of
submission of the online application form.
It is further contended that the petitioner
applied for the post of Junior Assistant
and was duly selected, though he did not
possess computer qualification prescribed
under the advertisement, as he did not
have ''CCC' certificate issued by the
DOEACC
Society
or
any
higher
qualification on the last date of filling of
application form. The petitioner made a
false declaration in the application form
that the petitioner had CCC Certificate
qualification. Sri Ashish Mishra, learned
counsel for the respondent relied upon a
Division
Bench
judgement
dated
30.11.2016 passed in Special Appeal
No.751 of 2016 (Ajay Seth Vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others) which is annexure 3 to
the writ petition.

12. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
facts as stated in the counter affidavit
2 All. Arvind Kumar Vs Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Alld. & Anr.
1961
were denied. Shri Bhushan learned counsel
for the petitioner relied upon Division Bench
Judgment of this Court dated 06.05.2019 in
Special Appeal (Defective) No.679 of 2017
(Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2
others). He further relied upon another
Division Bench Judgement of this Court
dated 16.05.2019 in Special Appeal No.1265
of 2018 (District Judge Azamgarh and
another Vs. Sandeep Kumar Chauharn and
another).

13. Heard learned counsel for the
parties. Since affidavits have already been
exchanged, with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the matter is being
heard finally and disposed of at the
admission stage itself.

14. From perusal of the facts as
narrated above, it is clear that on the last
date of submission of online form, the
petitioner does not have certificate of
CCC issued by DOEACC Society. It is
also clear that two show-cause notices
were issued to the petitioner by the
respondent No.2, i.e., notices dated
31.08.2016 and 09.09.2016. Replies of the
aforesaid show-cause notices were duly
given by the petitioner vide reply dated
29.09.2016 and 24.09.2016. In both the
replies, it is clearly mentioned by the
petitioner that he possess a Diploma from
Polytechnic Chandauli which is within the
purview of Government of India Project
and is equivalent to Computer Concept
Course (CCC) Certificate issued by
DOEACC Society (NIETLIT) but by
passing the impugned order, the reply
submitted by the petitioner was not at all
taken into consideration by the respondent
No.2From perusal of the impugned order
dated 7.1.2017, it is clear that the order
was passed by the respondent No.2
without application of mind and without
considering the fact that the qualification
possessed by the petitioner is equivalent
to the Computer Concept Course (CCC)
Certificate.

15. Apart from the same, Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay
Kumar (supra) has already been held that
the Computer Concept Course (CCC) is
designed to fulfill the beginner level
computer literacy and that can be
undertaken by a person at his own also. It
was further held that only requirement is
that he must get the same verified by
NIELIT (formerly known as "DOEACC
Society"). The course in question is not
expertise in computer application but is
the most preliminary knowledge for
computer operation. The certificate of
CCC is available even for the persons
who are having no formal education.

16. After taking into consideration the
aforesaid aspects of the matter, the Division
Bench was pleased to set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
the writ petition filed by Sanjay Kumar as
well as the order passed by the District Judge
Unnao cancelling the appointment of the
applicant-petitioner.
The
petitioner
was
directed to reinstate in the District Judgeship
of Unnao with all consequential benefits
except actual the actual payment of salary for
the period he remained out of employment.
Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement is
reproduced below:-

"In appeal, we have looked into
the entire issue including the nature of
certificate of CCC. As per the details
available on the official websidte of the
NIELIT, the deails of the Course on
Computer Concepts (CCC) is as follows:-

"Introduction: This course is
designed to aim at imparting a basic level
1962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
IT LIteracy programme for the common
man. This programme has essentially
been conceived with an idea of giving an
opportunity to the common man to attain
computer literacy thereby contributing to
increased and speedy PC penetration in
different walks of life. After completing
the course the incumbent should be able
to use the computer for basis purposes of
preparing his personnel/business letters,
viewing information on internet (the web),
receiving and sending mails, preparing
his business presentations, preparing
small databases etc. This helps the small
business communities, housewives, etc. to
maintain their small accounts using the
computers and enjoy in the world of
Information Technology. This course is,
therefore, designed to be more practical
oriented.

Eligibility: The candidates can
appear in the NIELIT CCC Examination
through following three modes and the
eligibility criteria for each mode are
indicated against each:

2.1 Candidates sponsored by
NIELIT approved Institutes permitted to
conduct CCC Course - irrespective of any
educational qualifications;

2.2 Candidates sponsored by
Government recognized Schools/Colleges
having obtained an Unique Identity
number from NIELIT for conducting CCC
-
irrespective
of
any
educational
qualifications, and

2.3 Direct Applicants (without
essentially undergoing the Accredited
Course or without being sponsored by a
Govt.
recognized
School/College)
-
irrespective
of
any
educational
qualification;

Duration: The total duration of
the course is 80 hours, consisting of

(I) Theory 25 hours

(ii) Tutorials 5 hours

(iii) Practicals 50 hours

The course could ideally be a
two weeks intensive course."

The introduction quoted above
indicates that the Course on Computer
Concepts (CCC) is designed to fulfill the
beginner level computer literacy and that
can be undertaken by a person at his own
also. The only requirement is that he must
get the same verified by NIELIT (formerly
known as "DOEACC Society"). The
course is not expertise in computer
application but is the most preliminary
knowledge for computer operation. The
certificate of CCC is available even for
the persons who are having no formal
education. As a matter of fact, it is the
first step for computer literacy. The only
purpose to include certificate of "CCC" in
the eligibility is that the aspirant must be
aware with computer and he should a
computer
literate.
The
appellantpetitioner who is a Post Graduate
Diploma in Computer Application is too
ahead to the knowledge extended through
CCC. The advance knowledge available
to the appellant-petitioner very well
satisfies the purpose and need to have
certificate of CCC. Learned single Bench
failed to appreciate that the purpose of
having a CCC certificate stands satisfied
on having the higher qualification of Post
Graduation in Computer Application.

In view of whatever stated
above, we are of considered opinion that
learned single Bench erred while arriving
at the conclusion that the order passed by
District
Judge,
Unnao
dated
19th
September, 2016 does not suffer from any
error.

Accordingly,
the
appeal
is
allowed. The order dated 5th January,
2017 is set aside. The Writ Petition
No.60818 of 2016 is allowed. The order
2 All. Pancham Ram Yadav Vs The U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. & Anr.
1963
dated 19th September, 2016 passed by the
District Judge, Unnao cancelling the
appointment of the appellant-petitioner is
set aside. The petitioner is declared
entitled to be reinstated as Stenographer
Grade III in district judgeship Unnao with
all consequential benefits except the
actual payment of salary for the period he
remained out of employment in pursuance
to the order dated 19th September, 2015."

17. Similar view was taken by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
District Judge Azamgarh and another
(supra) . The petitioner is possessing diploma
in
Computer
Application
from
Janta
Computer Education Centre as well as
diploma in Computer Application from
Polytechnic, Chandauli. The diploma obtained
from
Polytechnic
Chandauli
is
under
Government of India. The duration of
diploma obtained from Polytechnic Chandauli
is of more than 80 hours whereas the essential
qualification of having CCC certificate issued
by DOEACC Society (NIETNIT) is 80 hours
basic course of study. The petitioner in reply
to the show cause notice has given full detail
regarding his essential qualification. Since the
petitioner is having a diploma which is higher
qualification than CCC certificate, as such, the
order dated 7.1.2017 terminating his services
is not sustainable.

18. In view of the law laid down by
the Division Bench in the aforesaid two
judgements, I am of the opinion that the
writ petition is liable to be allowed and
the same is allowed. The order dated
07.01.2017 passed by the District Judge
Chandauli (Annexure 16 to the writ
petition) is set aside. The petitioner is
declared entitle to reinstate in the District
Judgeship
of
Chandauli
with
all
consequential benefits except the actual
payment of salary for the period he
remained out of employment pursuant to
order dated 01.07.2017.

19. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is allowed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1963

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.10.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 435 of 2008

Pancham Ram Yadav
 ...Petitioner-Appellant
Versus
The U.P. Co-Operative Federation
Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Prakash Padia, Sri Chandan Kumar.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi, Sri V.C.
Tripathi.

A. U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees
Service Regulation, 1975- Regulations
84, 85 and U.P. Co-operative Federation
Limited Karamchari Seva Niyamawali,
1980- Rule 83- Regulation 84 and Rule
83 combined together should not allow
the process to remain unfinished-Writ
against the dismissal of appellant from
service was dismissed vide impugned
order
dated
12.11.2007-
Recall
application also dismissed. Referring the
matter to a Larger Bench, the High Court
observed -Regulation 84 should be read
in
a
manner
so
as to
allow the
Disciplinary Authority to impose an
appropriate punishment coupled with a