# Dr. Padmakar Mishra v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1187
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-28
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 16997 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-padmakar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52635
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

C.S.C., Shesh Kumar Srivastava

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether an objection to petitioner's
qualification
for
the
post
of
Director
(Publication) can be raised to challenge his
promotion?
(b) What would be the effect of order dated
17.09.2019 whereby GO dated 31.12.2003 was
cancelled being a forged document on basis of
an inquiry?
(c) What would be the effect of impugned order
dated 17.09.2019, i.e., whether it would be
retrospective or prospective?
(d)
Whether
petitioner
being
Director
(Publication) would be entitled to retire at the
age of 60 years or 62 years?
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes:
A. Service Law - U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973: Section 2(7), 2(19) - To
object the qualification of petitioner
after so many years, when admittedly it
is not a case of fraud, would be
unjustified. The stand of RespondentUniversity that petitioner is not qualified for
the post of Director (Publication) since he
does not possess qualification as prescribed
for the post of direct recruitment, would not
be applicable in the present case since
admittedly petitioner is promoted to the post
on basis of his qualification on which he was
appointed on the post of Sales Officer, based
on GO dated 31.12.2003 and resolution
dated 14.08.2012. (Para 26, 27)

After some litigation before this Court and
direction passed therein,
the
Executive
Council
of
University
by
a
unanimous
decision dated 14.08.2012 adopted GO dated
31.12.2003 and accepted the proposal of
promotion from the post of Sales Officer to
Director (Publication). Said resolution is still
in existence and admittedly on basis of said
resolution, petitioner was promoted on the
post of Director (Publication) vide order
dated 23.08.2012. (Para 25)

B. Since petitioner could not submit
that GO dated 31.12.2003 was not a
forged document and Court cannot
dispute the outcome of an inquiry.
Therefore, the Court proceed with a
view
that
said
document
dated
31.12.2003 was a forged document and
rightly cancelled by subsequent GO
dated 17.09.2019 upon a detail inquiry.
(Para 29)

C. Any adverse consequence of GO
dated 17.09.2019 would not fall on
petitioner
since
it
would
remain
prospective and it cannot become a
ground to snatch the promotion of the
petitioner on the post of Director
(Publication) after so many years since
admittedly, it is not a case of fraud. The
GO dated 31.12.2003 remained subject of
litigations before this Court and this Court
has not disturbed the said GO. Moreover, the
said GO was adopted by University by taking
a
resolution
and
only
thereafter
the
promotion was made. (Para 33)
GO dated 17.09.2019 does not direct
that
the
proceedings
already
undertaken prior to said GO would
become void ab initio. Therefore, the
contents of it also show that it is
prospective in nature.
Till date the
resolution adopted by University as well as
the order of promotion is not disturbed. The
Court also takes note of contents of the GO
dated 17.09.2019 that no proceedings be
undertaken
on
basis
of
GO
dated
31.12.2003. University has also not taken
any resolution on basis of said GO issued by
Government. Therefore, on basis of said GO
dated
17.09.2019
also,
promotion
of
petitioner cannot be disturbed. (Para 35)

D.
The
reason
that
GO
dated
28.02.2011 determining the age of
retirement as 62 in place of 60 years,
was only a one time relaxation and
was provided only for the person
having the post in the year 2011, does
not have any legal basis since if the
University gives benefit to one person
and denies to similarly situated other
person,
it
would
be
an
act
of
arbitrariness, i.e., a violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. In the
impugned order dated 25.10.2025, claim of
petitioner was rejected on two grounds.
Firstly,
that
GO
dated
31.12.2003
is
cancelled, which does not survive. Second
ground is age relaxation vide GO dated
28.02.2011. The University has to act in
fairness and it cannot give advantage to
one person and deny t

## Text

11 All. Dr. Padmakar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1187

9.
Following
the
aforementioned
judgements of Apex Court, a Division
Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case
of Ravi Kumar Jeph v. Joint Director,
Office of the Chief Commissioner, CGST
and Central Excise (Jaipur Zone),
Jaipur, Rajasthan & another (D.B.Civil
Writ Petition No.4928 of 2020 : 2023RJJP:41338-DB), has held as under:-

"18. ...the principles pertaining to
the
nature
of
claim
made
by
the
dependents, its consideration based on the
parameters as laid down in the relevant
Rules, that also with the emphasis that the
applicant-dependent
must
strictly
fall
within the parameters as on the date of the
death of government servant, are well
established besides the fact that the
appointment is neither a right nor an
alternative source of recruitment.

(emphasis supplied)"

10. The aforementioned judgement of
Rajasthan High Court in Ravi Kumar
Jeph (supra), was challenged before the
Apex Court by means of Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 25916 of
20257. The Apex Court vide its judgement
dated 17.06.2025 has dismissed the petition
on the ground of delay as well as on merits,
observing that there is no ground to
interfere with the order challenged therein.

11.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid,
admittedly the petitioner does not fulfill the
criteria as framed under Rule-5 of the
Rules, 1974 as his mother (spouse of
deceased employee) is working as Clerk in
NOIDA Authority and in view of the
settled position of law, discussed in
preceding paragraphs, it is inevitable the
dependent must strictly fall within the
parameters as on the date of death of
government servant and must fulfill the
norms laid down by policy of State
Government,
for
consideration
of
employment on compassionate ground.

12. I do not find it a fit case to be
interfered with. The writ petition lacks
merit, hence stands dismissed. No order as
to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1187
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 16997 of 2025
&
Writ A No. 16669 of 2019

Dr. Padmakar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aman Arya, Udayan Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shesh Kumar Srivastava

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether an objection to petitioner's
qualification
for
the
post
of
Director
(Publication) can be raised to challenge his
promotion?
(b) What would be the effect of order dated
17.09.2019 whereby GO dated 31.12.2003 was
cancelled being a forged document on basis of
an inquiry?
(c) What would be the effect of impugned order
dated 17.09.2019, i.e., whether it would be
retrospective or prospective?
(d)
Whether
petitioner
being
Director
(Publication) would be entitled to retire at the
age of 60 years or 62 years?
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes:
A. Service Law - U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973: Section 2(7), 2(19) - To
object the qualification of petitioner
after so many years, when admittedly it
is not a case of fraud, would be
unjustified. The stand of RespondentUniversity that petitioner is not qualified for
the post of Director (Publication) since he
does not possess qualification as prescribed
for the post of direct recruitment, would not
be applicable in the present case since
admittedly petitioner is promoted to the post
on basis of his qualification on which he was
appointed on the post of Sales Officer, based
on GO dated 31.12.2003 and resolution
dated 14.08.2012. (Para 26, 27)

After some litigation before this Court and
direction passed therein,
the
Executive
Council
of
University
by
a
unanimous
decision dated 14.08.2012 adopted GO dated
31.12.2003 and accepted the proposal of
promotion from the post of Sales Officer to
Director (Publication). Said resolution is still
in existence and admittedly on basis of said
resolution, petitioner was promoted on the
post of Director (Publication) vide order
dated 23.08.2012. (Para 25)

B. Since petitioner could not submit
that GO dated 31.12.2003 was not a
forged document and Court cannot
dispute the outcome of an inquiry.
Therefore, the Court proceed with a
view
that
said
document
dated
31.12.2003 was a forged document and
rightly cancelled by subsequent GO
dated 17.09.2019 upon a detail inquiry.
(Para 29)

C. Any adverse consequence of GO
dated 17.09.2019 would not fall on
petitioner
since
it
would
remain
prospective and it cannot become a
ground to snatch the promotion of the
petitioner on the post of Director
(Publication) after so many years since
admittedly, it is not a case of fraud. The
GO dated 31.12.2003 remained subject of
litigations before this Court and this Court
has not disturbed the said GO. Moreover, the
said GO was adopted by University by taking
a
resolution
and
only
thereafter
the
promotion was made. (Para 33)
GO dated 17.09.2019 does not direct
that
the
proceedings
already
undertaken prior to said GO would
become void ab initio. Therefore, the
contents of it also show that it is
prospective in nature.
Till date the
resolution adopted by University as well as
the order of promotion is not disturbed. The
Court also takes note of contents of the GO
dated 17.09.2019 that no proceedings be
undertaken
on
basis
of
GO
dated
31.12.2003. University has also not taken
any resolution on basis of said GO issued by
Government. Therefore, on basis of said GO
dated
17.09.2019
also,
promotion
of
petitioner cannot be disturbed. (Para 35)

D.
The
reason
that
GO
dated
28.02.2011 determining the age of
retirement as 62 in place of 60 years,
was only a one time relaxation and
was provided only for the person
having the post in the year 2011, does
not have any legal basis since if the
University gives benefit to one person
and denies to similarly situated other
person,
it
would
be
an
act
of
arbitrariness, i.e., a violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. In the
impugned order dated 25.10.2025, claim of
petitioner was rejected on two grounds.
Firstly,
that
GO
dated
31.12.2003
is
cancelled, which does not survive. Second
ground is age relaxation vide GO dated
28.02.2011. The University has to act in
fairness and it cannot give advantage to
one person and deny to another similarly
situated person. The contents of said GO do
not limit to one person. Word "पदधारक"
does not mean a person holding the post at
relevant time. Otherwise also, it is an order
passed with the consent of the Governor,
therefore, it will apply to all beneficiaries.
(Para 37)

Impugned order dated 25.10.2025 in Second
Petition is set aside and it is directed that
petitioner will now retire after attaining the age
of 62 years. In case Respondent-University
proceeds to pass any adverse order against
11 All. Dr. Padmakar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1189
petitioner despite above observations, they have
to put petitioner on prior notice. (Para 38)

Writ petitions disposed of. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Rupa Rani Rakshit and others Vs. Jharkhand
Gramin Bank and others, (2010) 1 SCC 345
(Para 23)

List of Acts
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.

List of Keywords
service,
promotion,
teacher,
director,
retirement, qualification.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Aman Arya, Udayan Nandan
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Shesh Kumar
Srivastava

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

1. In present writ petitions it is
not
under
much
dispute
that
petitioner was initially appointed as
a Sales Officer vide order dated
18.08.1998
by
Registrar,
Sampoornanand Sanskrit University,
Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as
"University").

2. The State of U.P. has issued a
Government Order dated 31.12.2003 to
Registrar of University that Governor
has permitted by Government Order
dated 18.09.1998 that a post of Director
(Publication)
under
the
Publication
Department of University could be
filled in by promotion from the post of
Sales
Officer
(Vikray
Adhikari).
Scanned copy of Government Order
dated 31.12.2003 is pasted hereinafter
as well as its relevant part is also
reproduced hereinafter:

"उपयुथक्त जवषयक आपके कायाथलय ज्ञाप संख्या
शा०-1111/2001, जदनांक 31.12.2001 के सन्दभथ में मुझे
यह कहने का जनदेश हुआ है जक श्री राज्यपाल महोदय शासनादेश
सं०- 2717/70-4/98-5 (2)/98 जदनांक 18 जसतम्बर,
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1998 द्वारा जवश्वजवद्यालय के प्रकाशन जवभाग के अऩ्तगथत सृजित
जनदेशक, प्रकाशन के पद की पदोन्नजत पद मानते हुए इस पद पर
जवक्रय अजिकारी की पदोन्नजत जकये िाने की सहषथ स्वीकृजत प्रदान
करते है।"

3. Aforesaid order is the bone of
contention, since in the year 2019 the State
Government has communicated a letter
dated 17.09.2019 addressed to Registrar of
University
that
aforesaid
Government
Order was a forged order and it was
accordingly cancelled. This order is subject
matter of challenge in Writ-A No. 16669 of
2019 (hereinafter referred to as "First
Petition").

4. It is also not under much dispute
that on basis of aforesaid Government
Order
dated
31.12.2003,
earlier
the
Executive Council of University took a
decision dated 14.08.2012 adopting the
aforesaid Government Order that Sales
Officer can be considered for promotion on
the post of Director (Publication).

5. Aforesaid exercise of promotion
was undertaken on basis of some writ
petitions filed before this Court at the
behest of petitioner also since University
has proposed to fill the said post by direct
recruitment, which was stalled by this
Court.
Accordingly
petitioner
was
promoted
on
the
post
of
Director
(Publication)
vide
an
order
dated
23.08.2012
issued
by
Registrar
of
University.

6. It would be relevant to mention here
that
though
Government
Order
dated
31.12.2003 is set aside subsequently vide
Government Order dated 17.09.2019 still no
order has been passed to quash the aforesaid
order of promotion dated 23.08.2012 which
was essentially based on Government Order
dated 31.12.2003. The decision of the
University dated 14.08.2012 is also not
withdrawn and outcome of proposed FIR is
also not on record.

7. In aforesaid circumstances, First
Petition was filed challenging Government
Order dated 17.09.2019 and for reference
contents thereof are reproduced hereinafter:

"प्रेषक,

आर० रमेश कुमार,

सजचव,

उत्तर प्रदेश शासन।

सेवा में,

कुलसजचव,

सम्पूणाथनन्द संस्कृत जवश्वजवद्यालय,

वाराणसी।

उच्च जशक्षा अनुभाग-4

लखनऊः जदनांक 17 जसतम्बर, 2019

जवषयः- जवश्वजवद्यालय के जनदेशक, प्रकाशन पद पर
जवक्रय अजिकारी को पदोन्नजत जकये िाने के सम्बन्ि में।

महोदय,

उपयुथक्त जवषय के संबंि में मुझे यह कहने का
जनदेश हुआ है जक शासन के संज्ञान में यह तथ्य लाया गया जक संपूणाथनन्द
संस्कृत जवश्वजवद्यालय, वाराणसी में जनदेशक, प्रकाशन के पद पर जवक्रय
अजिकारी की पदोन्नजत जकये िाने जवषयक शासनादेश संख्या-
3556/70-4/2003-5(2)/98 टी.सी. जदनांक 31.12.2003
कूट रजचत है। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण की िाूँच करायी गयी। िाूँच में यह पाया
गया जक उक्त शासनादेश पर अंजकत हस्ताक्षर कूट रजचत है।

2- अतः सम्यक जवचारोपरांत तर्ाकजर्त उक्त
शासनादेश संख्या- 3556/70-4/2003-5(2) /98 टी.सी.
जदनांक 31.12.2003 को कूट रजचत होने के कारण जनरस्त जकया
िाता है तर्ा यह जनदेजशत जकया िाता है जक उक्त कूट रजचत
शासनादेश जदनांक 31.12.2003 के आिार पर कोई कायथवाही
न की िाए। इसके अजतररक्त प्रकरण में एफ०आई०आर० भी दिथ
करायी िाए।
11 All. Dr. Padmakar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1191

3- उक्त आदेशों का कडाई से अनुपालन सुजनजित
जकया िाए।

भवदीय

ह० अप०

 (आर० रमेश कुमार)

सजचव।"

8. In First Petition an order was passed
on 23.10.2019 whereby petitioner was
allowed to work on the post of Director
(Publication) but it was directed that his
continuance shall be subject to final
decision of writ petition. Said order is
reproduced hereinafter:

"By means of this writ petition
the petitioner has come up to this Court
raising a grievance that pursuant to
declaration of Government Order dated
31st
December,
2003
being
forged
document the petitioner's services will be
affected as the petitioner was given
promotion
on
the
post
of
Director
Publication on the basis of the aforesaid
Government Order. The petitioner was
holding the post of Sales Officer in
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University,
Varanasi.

It has been stated at the Bar that
the post of Director Publication was
initially occupied by teaching staff but after
this Government Order dated 31.12.2003
the post was made promotional from
amongst
the
Sales
Officers
in
the
University. Prior to the petitioner one Dr.
Harish
Chandra
Mani
Tripathi
was
promoted from the post of Sales Officer to
the post of Director Publication and after
his retirement, the petitioner set up a claim
for promotion, which was not considered
and, therefore, the petitioner filed a writ
petition being Writ A No. 56070 of 2008
connected with Writ A No. 3211 of 2010,
which was finally decided by judgment and
order
dated
25.7.2012
directing
the
University authority to consider the claim
of the petitioner for promotion on the post
of Director Publication in view of the
aforesaid
Government
Order
dated
31.12.2003.

Sri
Shashi
Nandan,
learned
senior counsel assisted by Sri Satendra
Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that if at all the
aforesaid Government Order is a result of
forgery, the petitioner had no role to play
in that. The Government had earlier
acknowledged the aforesaid Government
Order as they were parties in the writ
petition but such an objection was never
raised. Now for the first time the aforesaid
Government Order has been held to be a
forged
document
on
the
basis
of
inconclusive enquiry conducted by the State
Authority, the date of which has not
mentioned. However, the enquiry report
has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ
petition.

From the conclusion of the
enquiry it has been stated therein that the
validity of the Government Order dated
31.12.2003 is doubtful and collusivness of
the University also appears to be evident.
However, from the concluding portion of
the enquiry report, it appears that the
enquiry
officer,
appointed
by
the
Government, suggested special enquiry by
some agency. However, the Government
has
now
cancelled
the
aforesaid
Government Order and has directed
lodging of an FIR.

So far as the cancellation of the
Government Order and lodging of an FIR
are concerned, I am not inclined to
interfere with the same. But so far as the
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner's continuance on the post is
concerned, at this juncture, I am of the
view that the petitioner having no role to
play, will not be disturbed from the post till
the next date of listing. However, his
continuance shall be subject to the final
decision in the writ petition.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
represents respondent nos. 1 and 2. Sri Ved
Byas Mishra, learned counsel represents
respondents no. 3, 4 and 5.

Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned
counsel submits that he may be allowed to
file
impleadment
application
for
impleading Dr. Harivansh Kumar Pandey,
who had initially made a complaint.

Sri Awasthi, learned counsel is
permitted to do so.

The respondents are allowed one
month time to file counter affidavit.

List thereafter."

9. During pendency of First Petition a
further development took place when
petitioner is being forced to retire at the
age of 60 years, whereas according to
petitioner the age of retirement of
Director (Publication) is 62 years. The
petitioner will attained age of 60 years on
30.11.2025, i.e. within few days. It was
communicated through a Government
Order dated 20.10.2024 whereby some
Teachers were allowed to work upto the
age of 62 years.

10.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
petitioner has approached this Court by
way of filing Writ-A No. 10489 of 2025,
which was disposed of by following order
dated 11.08.2025:

"1. The instant writ petition has
been filed seeking the following main
prayers:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari calling for the
records of the case and to quash the
impugned order dated 20.10.2024 passed
by the respondent University (Annexure
No.1 to the writ petition).

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents not to disturb the peaceful
continuance of petitioner on the post of
Director Publication in Sampurnanand
Sanskrit University. Varanasi up till the
completion of age of 62 years.

iii. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents pay him
salary month by month as and when same
falls due strictly in accordance with law as
is being paid to the petitioner regularly."

2. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioner without entering into
merits of the case, made an innocuous
prayer that the petitioner may be permitted
to file a fresh representation before
respondent no.2 and a direction may be
issued to him to decide the same in time
bound manner.

3. Learned Standing Counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
Staterespondents vehemently opposed the writ
petition on merits, but has not opposed the
innocuous prayer as made by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner.

4. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
11 All. Dr. Padmakar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1193
petitioner, Sri Saurabh, learned Standing
Counsel appeared on advance accepted
notice on behalf of the State-respondents,
perused the contents made in the writ
petition and the documents on record.

5. Without entering into merits of
the case, I am inclined to allow the
innocuous prayer made by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as no
objection made on behalf of learned
Standing counsel appearing on behalf of
State-respondents. Petitioner is directed to
file a fresh representation along with
present writ petition as well as certified
copy of this order before respondent no.2
within one week from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
After receiving the said representation,
respondent no.2, Registrar, Sampurnanand
Sanskrit University, Varanasi is directed to
decide
the
said
representation
in
accordance
with
law,
expeditiously,
preferably within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receiving of the said
representation.

6.
With
the
aforesaid
directions/observations, the present writ
petition is disposed of."

11. In pursuance of above order claim
of petitioner to work upto the age of 62
years was considered, however, vide order
dated 25.10.2025 passed by Registrar of
University it was rejected and relevant part
thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

"डा० पद्माकर जमश्र के संबंि में उपरोक्त तथ्यों का
सम्यक रूप से परीक्षण करने के पिात जनम्न जबन्दुओं के आिार पर 62
वषथ की अजिवजषथतावय जदये िाने का कोई जवजिक आिार नहीं हैः-

1- शासनादेश संख्या-3556/70-4/20035(2)/98 टी.सी. जदनांक 31.12.2003 िो जक उच्च जशक्षा
अनुभाग-4 द्वारा कजर्त रूप से प्रसाररत जकया गया र्ा, के संबंि में
शासनादेश संख्या-481/सत्तर-4-2019-1131(िाूँच)/2017
जदनांक 17 जसतम्बर 2019, िो जक श्री आर. रमेश कुमार, सजचव
उच्च जशक्षा के द्वारा जनदेजशत जकया गया है जक- जवक्रय अजिकारी
की पदोन्नजत के जलए िारी शासनादेश संख्या-3556/704/2003-5(2)/98 टी.सी. जदनांक 31.12.2003 को
कूटरजचत होने के कारण जनरस्त जकया िाता है तर्ा यह जनदेजशत
जकया िाता है जक उक्त कूट रजचत शासनादेश जदनांक
31.12.2003 के आिार पर कोई कायथवाही न की िाये। इसके
अजतररक्त प्रकरण में एफ.आई.आर. भी दिथ करायी िाये।

2. स्वयं डॉ. पद्माकर जमश्र ने अपने प्रत्यावेदन
जदनांक 17.01.2011 िो मा. कुलपजत महोदय को सम्बोजित है
में उन्होंने स्वयं स्वीकार जकया है जक जनदेशक प्रकाशन का पद गैर
शैक्षजणक है।

3. माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद मे योजित
याजचका संख्या-56070/2008 एवं 3211/2010 डॉ.
पद्माकर जमश्र बनाम स्टेट आफ यू.पी. व अन्य में पाररत आदेश
(Now the controversy which needs to be
resolved by this Court is the subsequent
development, which has taken place.
During the pendency of the writ petition the
Government has issued an order on
28.2.2011 (Annexure-7 to the second
rejoinder affidavit). It was made clear in
that order that the age of retirement of the
post of Director Prakashan will remain 60
years in place of 62 years.) जदनांक 25.07.2012
के अनुपालन में कायथपररषद् की बैठक जदनांक 17.08.2012 में
जलये गये जनणथय के पररप्रेक्ष्य में जवश्वजवद्यालय आदेश संख्या सा०
4354/2012, जदनांक 23.08.2012 के द्वारा डॉ. पद्माकर
जमश्र की जनदेशक प्रकाशन के जशक्षणेत्तर पद पर पदोन्नजत से भरा
गया र्ा।

4.
शासनादेश
सं.
74/70-4-20115(9)/2008, जदनांक 28 फरवरी, 2011 उच्च जशक्षा
अनुभाग-4 द्वारा िारी जकया गया है। जिसमें स्पष्ट जकया गया है जक
अजिवजषथत आयु 60 वषथ के स्र्ान पर 62 वषथ जकये िाने जवषयक
शासनादेश जदनांक 25.07.2008 केवल पद िारक के जलए
जकया गया र्ा।
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

अतः डॉ. पद्माकर जमश्र, जनदेशक प्रकाशन के
प्रत्यावेदन जदनांक 17 अगस्त, 2025 के सार् संलग्न माननीय
उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में योजित याजचका सं.
10489/2025, डॉ. पद्माकर जमश्र बनाम स्टेट आफ यू.पी. व
अन्य मे पाररत आदेश जदनांक 11.08.2025 के समादर में
उपयुथक्त तथ्यों के आिार पर 62 वषथ की अजिवजषथता आयु नहीं
प्रदान करते हुए प्रकरण को जनस्ताररत जकया िाता है।

इस पर मा. कुलपजत महोदय की स्वीकृजत प्राप्त है।"

12. This order is challenged by way of
filing
Writ-A
No.
16997
of
2025
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"Second
Petition").

13. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Udayan Nandan,
learned counsel for petitioner, referred the
definition of 'Teacher' and 'Director' as
mentioned in Section 2(7) and 2(19)
respectively of U.P. State Universities Act,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1973").
For
reference
the
same
is
reproduced hereinafter:

"(7) " Director" in relation, to
an Institute, means the head of such
Institute;"

"(19) " Teacher" in relation to
the provisions of this Act except Chapter
XI-A, means a person employed in a
University or in an institute or in a
constituent or affiliated or associated
college of a University for imparting
instructions of guiding or conducting
research in any subject or course approved
by that University and includes a Principal
or Director;

"University" means an existing
University or a new University established
after the commencement of this Act under
Section 4;"

14. Learned Senior Advocate further
referred
a
Government
Order
dated
25.07.2008 whereby the State has directed
the Registrar of University that Governor
has sanctioned the age of retirement of
Director (Publication) to be 62 years in
place of 60 years. For reference said
Government Order dated 25.07.2008 is
reproduced hereinafter:

"प्रेषक,

पी०एन० बार्म,

जवशेष सजचव,

उत्तर प्रदेश शासन।

सेवा में,

जवत्त अजिकारी / कुलसजचव,

सम्पूणाथनन्द संस्कृत जवश्वजवद्यालय,

वाराणसी।

उच्च जशक्षा अनुभाग-4

लखनऊः जदनाकः 25 िुलाई, 2008

जवषयः- जनदेशक जशक्षण शोि एवं प्रकाशन संस्र्ान
के पदिारक की अजिवजषथता आयु बढ़ाये िाने के सम्बन्ि में।

महोदय,

उपयुथक्त जवषयक कुलपजत, सम्पूणाथनन्द संस्कृत
जवश्वजवद्यालय, वाराणसी के पत्रांक-059/2008-09 जदनाकः
07 िून 2008 के सन्दभथ में मुझे यह कहने का जनदेश हुआ है जक
सम्पूणाथनन्द संस्कृत जवश्वजवद्यालय, वाराणसी में अवजस्र्त जशक्षण
शोि एवं प्रकाशन संस्र्ान के जनदेशक पद को शैजक्षक पद मानते हुए
उसके पदिारक की अजिवजषथता आयु 60 वषथ के स्र्ान पर 62 वषथ
जकये िाने की श्री राज्यपाल महोदय सहषथ स्वीकृजत प्रदान करते हैं।
शेष अन्य सभी शते पेंशन हेतु िो जशक्षकों के जलए वतथमान में
जनिाथररत है, वह लागू रहेगी।

2- कृपया तद्नुसार उक्त प्रकरण में अग्रेतर कायथवाही
सुजनजित की िाय।

3- ये आदेश जवत्त जवभाग के अशासकीय संख्या-ई11-1621/दस- 2008, जदनाकः 25 िुलाई, 2008 में प्राप्त
उनकी सहमजत से जनगथत जकये िा रहे हैं।
11 All. Dr. Padmakar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1195

भवदीय,

ह० अप०

 (पी० एन० बार्म)

 जवशेष सजचव।"

15. Learned Senior Advocate also
referred the judgment passed by this Court
in earlier round of litigation, i.e., an order
dated 25.07.2012 passed in Writ-A Nos.
56070 of 2008 and 3211 of 2010 as well as
order dated 10.04.2014 passed in Writ-A
No. 20833 of 2014 filed by Dr. Harivansh
Kumar Pandey, whereby selection process
of petitioner was challenged but it was
failed.

16. Learned Senior Advocate further
submitted that any subsequent event would
not have any adverse effect on order of
promotion of petitioner. Petitioner has
worked as a Director (Publication) and
according
to
relevant
Ordinance,
Department of Publication was established
as a separate Department having a Director.
He again referred the definition of
'Teacher' and 'Director', referred above in
earlier paragraph of this judgment.

17. Learned Senior Advocate also
mentioned that grounds mentioned in
impugned order dated 25.10.2025 that
Government
Order
dated
28.02.2011
whereby the age of retirement of Director
(Publication) was considered to be 62 years
in place of 60 years, was only a one time
relaxation for the purpose of person having
the said post at the relevant time, cannot be
accepted as a submission on behalf of
University since it would be unfair and
would also be arbitrary. University cannot
take a stand that it was only a one time
direction, rather it ought to have been
considered a direction for all other
beneficiaries including the petitioner.

18. Per contra, Sri Sanjeev Singh,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Utkarsh
Tripathi,
Advocate
for
Respondent-University, has vehemently
opposed the aforesaid submissions and
referred various documents that petitioner's
promotion from the post of Sales Officer to
the post of Director (Publication) was
absolutely dehors of rules. There was no
such provision, except Government Order
dated 31.12.2003 which was found a forged
document upon an inquiry since the
signature on it was found forged and
accordingly
it
was
cancelled
by
Government Order dated 17.09.2019 by
State. Therefore, all its benefits or acts in
pursuance of it would become null and void
ab initio. Petitioner's promotion itself
become illegal, therefore, there is no
question that he would retire at the age of
62 years. Though he fairly submits that
there is no question of any recovery since
petitioner
has
served
as
Director
(Publication). The petitioner was not
qualified
for
the
post
of
Director
(Publication).

19. Learned Senior Advocate though
not able to deny that no fraud was played
by petitioner for getting his promotion. He
was not an instrumentality for creating the
Government
Order
dated
31.12.2003
whereby a person having post of Sales
Officer could be promoted on the post of
Director (Publication).

20. Learned Senior Advocate also
referred the above referred orders passed by
this Court that in the order dated 23.10.2019
this Court has kept open to look into the
matter, whether Government Order dated
31.12.2003 was a doubtful document or not.

21. Learned Senior Advocate also
referred some documents placed during
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
argument that by a Government Order
dated 26.12.1995, whereby the post of
Sales Officer was created, was only for the
purpose of three years. He also referred that
petitioner has applied only on the post of
Sales Officer and has only the qualification
for the said post. He further referred an
Advertisement dated 12.01.2010 which was
the subject matter of challenge in earlier
round
of
litigation,
has
prescribed
qualification for the post of Aacharya
(Professor) and Director (Publication) as
under:

"आचायथ (प्रोफेसर) पद हेतु अहथतायें।

ऐसा प्रख्यात जवद्वान जिसकी प्रख्याजपत रचना उच्च
कोजट की हो और जवश्वजवद्यालय, राष्ट्रीय स्तर के संस्र्ा अनुसंिान
कायथ में सजक्रय रूप से लगे हो तर्ा जिसे परास्नातक कक्षाओं में दस
वषथ का जशक्षण अनुभव अनुसंिान के कायथ के मागथदशथन का अनुभव
भी शाजमल हो, या जवषय का ख्याजतलब्ि मूिथन्य जवद्वान जिस के
क्षेत्र में महत्वपूणथ योगदान जकया हो।"

"जनदेशक, प्रकाशन संस्र्ान हेतु आहथतायें।

1. आचायथ/एम.ए (संस्कृत) सजहत आचायथ पद हेतु
जनिाथररत अन्य सबी अहथतायें।

जवशेष- 1- पाण्डुजलजपयों के प्रकाशन एवं शोि में
जवशेष दक्षता को वरीयता दी िायेगी।

2- पाण्डुजलजप जवज्ञान में योग्यता एवं अनुभव।"

22. Though learned Senior Advocate
fairly submitted that by order of this Court
the post was considered as a promotional
post and it was not filled by a direct
recruitment though essential qualification
was not disturbed.

23. Learned Senior Advocate lastly
referred para 10 of a judgment passed by
Supreme Court in Rupa Rani Rakshit and
others vs. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and
others, (2010)1 SCC 345 which is
reproduced hereinafter:

"10. It is now well-settled that if
an appointment or promotion is made
without considering the claims of all the
available
eligible
candidates
and/or
without following the relevant rules, the
service rendered in pursuance of such
illegal appointment or promotion cannot be
equated to service rendered in pursuance
of an appointment or promotion validly and
lawfully made. Whenever a person is
promoted to a post without following the
rules prescribed for such promotion, he
should be treated as a person not regularly
promoted to that post. Consequently, where
promotions are governed by Rules, in
computing the length of service, in the post
to which an employee is promoted, it is not
permissible to include the period of service
rendered in pursuance of an illegal
promotion which is subsequently set aside.
It, therefore, follows that the period of
service rendered by the appellants from
1990 to 2001 cannot be counted for the
purpose of seniority in the cadre of
Officers/Field Superiors. Therefore, the
appellants in C.A. No.1789/2002 are also
not entitled to any relief."

24. I have heard learned Senior
Advocates for parties at length and perused
the material available on record as well as
placed during hearing.

25. As referred above, there is no
dispute that petitioner was appointed on the
post of Sales Officer by an appointment
order dated 18.09.1998 being qualified for
the
said
post.
Subsequently
vide
Government
Order
dated
31.12.2003
Director
(Publication)
became
a
promotional post from the post of Sales
Officer and after some litigation before this
11 All. Dr. Padmakar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1197
Court and direction passed therein, the
Executive Council of University by a
unanimous
decision
dated
14.08.2012
adopted said Government Order dated
31.12.2003 and accepted the proposal of
promotion from the post of Sales Officer to
Director (Publication). Said resolution is
still in existence and admittedly on basis of
said resolution, petitioner was promoted on
the post of Director (Publication) vide
order dated 23.08.2012.

26. In aforesaid circumstances, the
qualification as possessed by petitioner for
the post of Sales Officer was considered to
be sufficient for consideration of his
promotion
on
the
post
of
Director
(Publication). It is not the case of petitioner
that he possessed the qualification as
prescribed in recruitment process initiated
by University, referred in earlier part of this
judgment and since the said procedure was
become a subject matter of litigation before
this Court and that it was held to be a post
to be filled by promotion, therefore, direct
recruitment did not proceed further for
appointment on the post of Director
(Publication).

27.
The
stand
of
RespondentUniversity that petitioner is not qualified
for the post of Director (Publication)
since he does not possess qualification as
prescribed
for
the
post
of
direct
recruitment, would not be applicable in
the
present
case
since
admittedly
petitioner is promoted to the post on basis
of his qualification on which he was
appointed on the post of Sales Officer,
based
on
Government
Order
dated
31.12.2003
and
resolution
dated
14.08.2012. Therefore, to object the
qualification of petitioner after so many
years, when admittedly it is not a case of
fraud, would be unjustified.

28. Now the other question is, what
would be the effect of order dated
17.09.2019 whereby Government Order
dated 31.12.2003 was cancelled being a
forged document on basis of an inquiry.

29. Any argument on behalf of
petitioner that said order can be set aside
has no legs since petitioner could not
submit that it was not a forged document
and Court cannot dispute the outcome of an
inquiry. Therefore, the Court proceed with
a
view
that
said
document
dated
31.12.2003 was a forged document and
rightly
cancelled
by
subsequent
Government Order dated 17.09.2019 upon
a detail inquiry. A challenge to it at the
behest of petitioner thus fail.

30. In aforesaid circumstances, the
other argument which can be considered,
i.e., what would be the effect of impugned
order dated 17.09.2019, i.e., whether it
would operate retrospective so much as that
promotion of petitioner on the post of
Director
(Publication)
based
on
Government Order dated 31.12.2003 would
be considered to be void ab initio from the
date
of
initial
promotion
or
w.e.f.
17.09.2019 or it would have no effect since
effect
of
Government
Order
dated
17.09.2019 would be prospective.

31. According to learned Senior
Advocate appearing for petitioner even in
such circumstances the effect would be
prospective and it would not have any
adverse effect on petitioner and his
promotion will remain intact.

32.
Per
contra,
learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
RespondentUniversity has placed reliance on Supreme
Court's judgment in Rupa Rani Rakshit
(supra) that if the basis of promotion goes,
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the order of promotion would itself become
void ab initio being the consequential order
as well as petitioner was not entitled for
even consideration for promotion on the
post of Director (Publication).

33. I have considered the above
submissions also and is of the opinion that
it is not a case of fraud so far petitioner is
concerned. The Government Order dated
31.12.2003 remained subject of litigations
before this Court and this Court has not
disturbed the said Government order as
well as that said Government order was
adopted
by
University
by
taking
a
resolution
and
only
thereafter
the
promotion was made, therefore, any
adverse consequence of Government Order
dated 17.09.2019 would not fall on
petitioner since it would remain prospective
and it cannot be become a ground to snatch
the promotion of the petitioner on the post
of Director (Publication) after so many
years since admittedly, it is not a case of
fraud.

34. Present case can be distinguished
from Rupa Rani Rakshit (supra) since
therein the relevant rules were not followed
despite they were in existence, whereas in
the present case Government Order dated
31.12.2003 was adopted by the University
which provides an avenue for Sales Officer
for promotion on the post of Director
(Publication). Therefore, it is not a case that
despite petitioner was not qualified, he was
promoted ignoring the prevalent rules.

35. Otherwise also, till date the
resolution adopted by University as well as
the order of promotion is not disturbed. The
Court also takes note of contents of the
Government Order dated 17.09.2019 that
no proceedings be undertaken on basis of
Government Order dated 31.12.2003. It
does not direct that the proceedings already
undertaken prior to said Government Order
would become void ab initio. Therefore,
the contents of it also shows that it is
prospective in nature. University has also
not taken any resolution on basis of said
Government Order issued by Government.
Therefore,
also
on
basis
of
said
Government
Order
dated
17.09.2019
promotion
of
petitioner
cannot
be
disturbed.

36. Now the next issue is, whether
petitioner being Director (Publication)
would entitled to retire at the age of 60
years or 62 years.

37. In this regard I have perused the
impugned order dated 25.10.2025 whereby
claim of petitioner was rejected on two
grounds. Firstly, that Government Order
dated 31.12.2003 is cancelled. This ground
does not survive since the Court has
already protected promotion of petitioner.
Second ground is that Government Order
dated 28.02.2011 whereby the age of
retirement was determined as 62 years in
place of 60 years, was only a one time
relaxation and was provided only for the
person having the post in the year 2011.
However, the Court is of the opinion that
said reason does not have any legal basis
since if the University give benefit to one
person and deny to similarly situated other
person, it would be an act of arbitrariness,
i.e., a violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Otherwise also, the
University has to act in fairness and it
cannot give advantage to one person and
deny to another similarly situated person.
The contents of said Government Order do
not limit to one person. Word "पदधारक" does
not mean a person holding the post at
relevant time. Otherwise, it is an order
passed with the consent of the Governor,
11 All. Sana Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1199
therefore, also it will apply to all
beneficiaries.

38. Accordingly, impugned order
dated 25.10.2025 in Second Petition is set
aside and it is directed that petitioner will
now retire after attaining the age of 62
years.
In
case
Respondent-University
proceed to pass any adverse order against
petitioner despite above observations, they
have to put petitioner on prior notice.

39. Both writ petitions are accordingly
disposed of.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1199
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 19787 of 2022
&
Connected With Other Cases

Sana Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Seemant Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., M.N. Singh, Nipun Singh

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether the Public Service Commission was
justified in preparing waiting list of 25%
candidates in addition to the selected candidates
in the face of the statutory clause 15 of the U.P
Homeopathic Medical Services Rules, 1990?
(b) Whether the Office Memorandum dated
15.01.1999 is applicable to advertisement in
question?
(c) Whether the waiting list prepared under the
Service Rules, 1990 would be surviving while
these petitions were preferred before this Court
in
November,
2022
taking
the
last
recommendation
made
by
Public
Service
Commission on 10.1.2022 and then again on
26.07.2022?
(d) Whether in the event of there being no
period prescribed under the Service Rules, 1990
for life of a waiting list, it would be deemed to
have continued for a period of three years as a
reasonable period?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Homeopathic Health
Services Rules, 1990: Rule 15(3); U.P.
Subordinate Education (Assistant District
Inspectors of Schools) Services Rules,
1992: Rule 15(3) - No amount of provision
made or introduced under the GO which is
a piece of subordinate legislation would
override the statutory rules framed in
purported exercise of power under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
The sanctity attached to the Rules framed
u/Article 309 of the Constitution therefore
cannot be taken way by an executive fiat issued
at the behest of the Governor in the form of GO.
(Para 25)

Insofar as the issue of single cadre post is
concerned, the GO is directed towards the single
cadre post. (Para 26)

Thus, the GO issued from time to time to be
related to preparation of waiting list in addition
to the list of selected candidates but the latest
GO dated 15.11.1999 revoked the previous GOs
absolutely, making a mandate that no further
waiting list shall be prepared. Under the
circumstances,
the
period
of
one
year
prescribed under various GOs for the waiting list
could not be relied upon once those GOs have
stood repealed/revoked by the GO dated
15.11.1999. Thus, insofar as the question No. 1
and 2 are concerned, they stand answered in
favour of the petitioners and against the Public
Service Commission to the effect that the Public
Service Commission was not justified in taking a
stand that no waiting list could have been
prepared in the face of statutory clause 15 of
the Service Rules 1990 and so also the GO
dated 15.11.1999 is held to be not applicable to
the case in hand. (Para 27)