# Commission v. Alpana - **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 556 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2004-08-24 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6779 of 1983 - **Bench:** R.B. Misra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/commission-v-alpana-40241 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India-Article 226Selection of petitioner on Asstt. Teacher by Selection Committee placing of wrong facts about petitioner that he possessed requisite qualification of B.Ed. on relevant date-Selection null and void-set aside by DIOS-Fresh selection conducted-Petitioner, not entitled to appointment and salary. Held: Para 5 & 6 According to the respondents, the petitioner was never allowed to join as such, no question arose for payment and when the out-come of the selection committee is void abinitio and the selection committee arrived on the conclusion to give quality point marks on the non-existing facts i.e. on the fact that the petitioner was not B.Ed. it is well settled that a candidate has to be in possession of required qualification and eligibility at the relevant date and time as required in the advertisement and acquiring degree or qualification beyond the prescribed date does not entitle to be bonafide candidate for the said selection in view of decision of Supreme Court in (1994) 2 S.C.C. 723 U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Alpana. I have learned counsel for the parties. I find that the petitioner was not in possession of the required qualification on the relevant date and has placed wrong facts that he was B.Ed., and got appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in the year 1998 which was declared dying cadre and the said selection by which the petitioner was bonafidely declared approved was set aside being null and void by the then D.I.O.S.. The subsequent selection already conducted had approved another person who was allowed to work. In these circumstances, the petitioner has no right to the post and salary and is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Case law discussed: (1994) 2 SCC 723 ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 556 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6779 of 1983 Tribhuwan Nath Rai ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. through the Collector, Ghazipur and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.N. Misra Sri Sidheshwari Prasad Sri R.P. Yadav Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sandeep Mukherji, S.C. Sri O.P. Singh Sri Faujdar Rai Constitution of India-Article 226Selection of petitioner on Asstt. Teacher by Selection Committee placing of wrong facts about petitioner that he possessed requisite qualification of B.Ed. on relevant date-Selection null and void-set aside by DIOS-Fresh selection conducted-Petitioner, not entitled to appointment and salary. Held: Para 5 & 6 According to the respondents, the petitioner was never allowed to join as such, no question arose for payment and when the out-come of the selection committee is void abinitio and the selection committee arrived on the conclusion to give quality point marks on the non-existing facts i.e. on the fact that the petitioner was not B.Ed. it is well settled that a candidate has to be in possession of required qualification and eligibility at the relevant date and time as required in the advertisement and acquiring degree or qualification beyond the prescribed date does not entitle to be bonafide candidate for the said selection in view of decision of Supreme Court in (1994) 2 S.C.C. 723 U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Alpana. I have learned counsel for the parties. I find that the petitioner was not in possession of the required qualification on the relevant date and has placed wrong facts that he was B.Ed., and got appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in the year 1998 which was declared dying cadre and the said selection by which the petitioner was bonafidely declared approved was set aside being null and void by the then D.I.O.S.. The subsequent selection already conducted had approved another person who was allowed to work. In these circumstances, the petitioner has no right to the post and salary and is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Case law discussed: (1994) 2 SCC 723 (Delivered by Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J.) 1. Heard Sri R.P. Yadav learned counsel for and on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Mukherji, learned Standing counsel. 2. In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner his entire salary due from 24.3.1982. 3. It appears that an advertisement was published for selection to the post of Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade (now a dying cadre) in the year 1980 where the incumbent was required to possess of B.Ed. degree in addition to the required qualification prescribed. The petitioner had appeared in the B.Ed. Examination but his result was not declared and at that relevant time he was not in a possession of degree of B.Ed., however on his wrong disclosure that he possess B.Ed. Degree, http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Tribhuwan Nath Rai V. State of U.P. and others 557 he was allowed to participate in the selection and the Selection Committee bonafidely awarded quality point marks and found into the zone of selection. According to the petitioner in view of such recommendation of Selection Committee, he has joined the service however he is not being paid salary. 4. According to the respondents, the petitioner was never allowed to join as such, no question arose for payment and when the out-come of the selection committee is void abinitio and the selection committee arrived on the conclusion to give quality point marks on the non-existing facts i.e. on the fact that the petitioner was not B.Ed. it is well settled that a candidate has to be in possession of required qualification and eligibility at the relevant date and time as required in the advertisement and acquiring degree or qualification beyond the prescribed date does not entitle to be bonafide candidate for the said selection in view of decision of Supreme Court in (1994) 2 S.C.C. 723 U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Alpana. 5. As indicated on behalf of the respondents, in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit that application on behalf of the petitioner was submitted to the management of Govind Intermediate College, Sadat, Ghazipur for allowing the petitioner to join in the service on the basis of the order dated 5.4.1982 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools after considering the entire facts and circumstances by his order dated 10.10.1980 cancelled the recommendation of the selection committee being null and void and directed for fresh selection in accordance with Rules. In pursuance of the order dated 10.10.1980 the Committee of Management took the steps for the fresh selection and the fresh advertisement was also published and the duly constituted Selection Committee at the relevant time recommended the selection of Mr. Shashidhar Rai which too was approved by the District Inspector of Schools and consequent upon Sri Shashidhar Rai had joined the service as Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade and was working, however the petitioner submitted an application to the Manager for allowing him to join, since the petitioner was never appointed by the Committee of Management and was never approved by the D.I.O.S., as such he was not allowed to join the post, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for as contended on behalf of the respondents. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find that the petitioner was not in possession of the required qualification on the relevant date and has placed wrong facts that he was B.Ed., and got appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in the year 1998 which was declared dying cadre and the said selection by which the petitioner was bonafidely declared approved was set aside being null and void by the then D.I.O.S.. The subsequent selection already conducted had approved another person who was allowed to work. In these circumstances, the petitioner has no right to the post and salary and is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. --------- http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 558 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22995 of 2001 Devendra Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.S. Chaudhary Sri Ansu Chaudhary Counsel for the Opposite Parties: S.C. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974-Claim for appointment by adopted son under Registered adoption deed-Rejection by District Magistrate and State Government-Writ against-Held, an adopted son held entitled for an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Held: Para 4 & 5 There was no difference between a real son and an adopted son and that an adopted son was entitled to all the benefits which a real son gets and was, therefore, entitled for an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness, Rules, 1974. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the order dated 14.5.2001, passed by the State Government as well as the order dated 30.5.2001, passed by the District Magistrate are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and, if it is found that he is an adopted son of the deceased, he should be given necessary appointment within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before me. Case law discussed: (1996) 1 UPLBEC 4 1994 (68) FLR 283 (Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.) 1. The petitioner contends that he is the adopted son of Jai Singh. He was adopted on 10.4.1983 according to hindu customs and traditions and that the adoption deed was duly registered. His father died on 29.5.1992. By an order of the Civil Judge, dated 24.2.1993, a succession certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that upon his father's death, he applied for an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The State Government by an order dated 14.5.2001 informed the District Magistrate that an adopted son was not entitled for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. On the basis of this order the District Magistrate, respondent no.2, by his order dated 30.5.2001 rejected the petitioner's application for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner has now preferred this writ petition for quashing the orders dated 14.5.2001 and 30.5.2001 (Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition). 2. Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. In Singhasan Gupta vs. State of U.P. and another, (1996) 1UPLBEC 4, this Court has held that the claim of an adopted son could not be rejected on the ground that he was an adopted son and directed the authorities to consider his case for appointment if he was found to be valid. 4. In Sunil Saxena vs. State of U.P.