# Devendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors. 252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 251
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 20607 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-252-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-54581
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Normalization rule-Advertisement was issued
-
normalization
not
mentioned
in
the
advertisement-contended that the entire result
published liable to be quashed-normalization
rules have been made applicable on account of
different set of question asked in different set of
papers -to do justice - as the questions may be
tough in some ways and easier in other ways -
so a balance is to be struck for the purposes of
creating merit list- Nothing has been argued as
to why the normalization rule is bad -the written
test has been held subsequently to the
notification -applying normalization to the test in
question justified.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

## Text

4 All. Devendra Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
251
indication to the contrary in the service book.
This is the field of operation of these two Rules,
according to us, as the same would permit, in
such a case, both the provisions to co-exist."

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra):

"However, against the subsequent
advertisement no.7/2014-15 pursuant to which
petitioner has been selected neither the
application was made through proper channel,
nor any No Objection Certificate was issued to
him by Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of
Himalayan
Environment
and
Development. This letter is not in issue.
The recital of facts therein, as per which
petitioner had not applied against post
code 3889 through proper channel, is
also not disputed. In view of the office
memorandum
dated
8.4.2016
the
resignation
of
petitioner
from
the
previous employer would not be covered
within
the
definition
of
'technical
resignation', and therefore, benefit of pay
protection would not be available to the
petitioner."

45. In aforesaid circumstances,
the only argument of learned Senior
Advocate
for
petitioner
left
for
consideration is, whether petitioner was
subject to arbitrariness and reliance
placed on State of Rajasthan and others
vs. O.P. Gupta (supra) is applicable or
not.

46. The allegation of arbitrariness
would not have any bearing on present
case since, as referred above, all other
arguments on merit have been rejected
and it is well settled that there is no
negative parity and benefit, if any granted
to other employees contrary to law,
would not entitle petitioner to get same
benefit.
Otherwise,
also
explanation
given by Banaras Hindu University
makes their case different. Accordingly,
argument of arbitrariness is also rejected.

47. Now the Court takes note of a
judgment relied on by learned Senior Advocate
for petitioner passed in State of Rajasthan and
others vs. O.P. Gupta (supra) wherein
question of prior permission was presumed
since in the given circumstances it could not be
ascertained or objected after more than two and
half decades, whereas in the present case
petitioner has not asserted that he has
participated in selection process at Nagpur
University with prior permission. Therefore, the
facts of present case, being distinguishable,
therefore, the judgment in State of Rajasthan
and others vs. O.P. Gupta (supra) will also
not helpful for the petitioner.

48. In aforesaid circumstances, the
Court is of the view that all arguments raised by
learned Senior Advocate for petitioner has no
legal basis, whereas arguments raised by
learned Senior Advocate for Banaras Hindu
University has substance. Therefore, the prayer
made in this writ petition to re-fix pension of
petitioner by including his 11 years of prior
service, being without any legal basis, is hereby
rejected.

49. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.

50. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 251
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 20607 of 2024

Devendra Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Santosh Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal

Normalization rule-Advertisement was issued
-
normalization
not
mentioned
in
the
advertisement-contended that the entire result
published liable to be quashed-normalization
rules have been made applicable on account of
different set of question asked in different set of
papers -to do justice - as the questions may be
tough in some ways and easier in other ways -
so a balance is to be struck for the purposes of
creating merit list- Nothing has been argued as
to why the normalization rule is bad -the written
test has been held subsequently to the
notification -applying normalization to the test in
question justified.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

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

(C.M.A No. 2 of 2025: Application
for impleadment)

The impleadment application is
allowed.

Petitioner is directed to carry out
necessary impleadment forthwith.

(Writ Petition)

1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar
Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and
Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 2, namely,
the Secretary U.P. Suobrdinate Service
Selection Commission, Lucknow.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution
petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari
to
quash
the
selection
result
dated
22.09.2024
declared/published
by
the
respondent No. 2 raising a plea that the
normalization rules that have been made
application to the written test held in the
matter was not a justified action in view of
the notification issued on 22.05.2019
which
specifically
quoted
certain
advertisement pursuant to which selection
was underway at that point of time.

3.
It
is
submitted
that
the
advertisement was issued for the post of
Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Gram Vikas
Adhikar and Samaj Kalyan Parivakshek
being numbered 2-examination 2018 and
had the Government this intention in mind
to apply normalization rules it would have
mentioned this in the advertisement dated
22.05.2019. Thus, it is contended that the
entire result that has been published on the
basis of normalization rules is liable to be
quashed.

4. Meeting the submissions so
advanced by learned counsel for petitioner
Shri Singhal, argued that this advertisement
though was issued in the year 2018 but the
selection process initially had already
concluded prior to the issuance of the
notification dated 22.05.2019. However,
since the selection process was annulled
subsequently by the State Government
immediately after some time, so fresh
written test was liable to be held and so
written test was held on 26.06.2023 and it
is for this very reason that the said
advertisement could not find mention in the
notification
dated
22.05.2019.
It
is
contended that, had the Government not
annulled the selection process then the
selection would have been completed in
the year 2018 itself and there would
have been no question to hold fresh
written
examination
and
to
apply
normalization rules. It is submitted that
since the selection process was annulled
4 All. Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253
and the fresh written examination
was held after the year 2019, then in view
of the last paragraph of the notification
dated 22.05.2019 and since the written
examination was conducted in more than
one shift, the normalization rule was
adopted and applied and, hence, there
was not flaw in the procedure followed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
respective parties and having perused the
records while I find that there is no mention
of the advertisement bearing No. 2examination 2018 in the notification dated
22.05.2019 but the counsel for petitioner
could not dispute that the selection process
that was undertaken pursuant to the said
advertisement had already been annulled
prior to the date of notification dated
22.05.2019.
In
such
circumstances,
therefore, the Commission was at liability
to issue fresh notification for holding
written
test
and
accordingly
those
candidates who had applied earlier pursuant
to the advertisement were permitted to
participate in the written examination that
was held on 26.06.2023. The last paragraph
of the notification dated 22.05.2019 which
has become relevant here is reproduced
below:

"उल्लेखनीर् है कक आर्ोग के आगामी
ववज्ञापनों के सापेक्ष प्राप्त आवेदन पत्रों की
सांख्र्ा के अनुसार जहाां एक से अधिक भशपटों
में परीक्षा आर्ोजजत की जार्ेंगी उन परीक्षाओां
पर उतत नामालाइजेशन प्रकिर्ा लागू की ज
सकेगी।
आर्ोग
द्वारा
लागू
की
गर्ी
नामालाइजेशन प्रकिर्ा का सूत्र (formul) सुलि
सांदिा हेतु सांलग्न।"

6. From a bare reading of the
aforesaid paragraph it transpires that the
Commission
intended
to
apply
normalization rules in all such written
examinations that are either notified under
the
notification
dated
22.05.2019
or
otherwise to be held in future where tests
are to be held in two shifts. In my
considered view, unless and until the
normalization rules itself are questioned to
be flawed one, the commission cannot be
said
to
have
faulted
in
applying
normalization
rules
to
all
future
examination pursuant to the notification
dated 22.05.2019.

7. Even otherwise and looking to
the object I find that normalization rules
have been made applicable on account of
different set of question asked in different
set of papers and to do justice to the
candidates as the questions may be tough in
some ways and easier in other ways and so
a balance is to be struck for the purposes of
creating merit list. Nothing has been argued
before me as to why the normalization rule
is bad and hence should not have been
applied. In my considered view since the
written test has been held subsequently to
the notification dated 22.05.2019, the
Commission was fully justified in applying
normalization to the test in question.

8. Petition lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ A No. 21727 of 2023

Binay Kumar Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners: