# Geeta Chandra v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 261 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-03-24 - **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/geeta-chandra-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54332 - **Pages:** 7 ## Text 3 All. Geeta Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 261 54. Thus, unless a person is impacted by direct adverse consequences which may either arise out of promotion or seniority or matters of like nature which may impact an employee or class of employees, till then, it may not allow any leverage to a particular employee or third party to assail an order passed affecting the another employee relating to his appointment and dismissal, which is per-se a matter purely between the employee and his employer. 55. In light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the clear view that the present appellant cannot be treated as an aggrieved person to assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the dismissal order passed against the writ-petitioner/respondent has been set aside. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the validity of the appointment of the writ-petitioner/respondent. In case, if the employer chooses to challenge the same then the instant order may not come in its way nor this order in any manner approves the appointment of the writ petitioner, either directly or indirectly, as it is not in issue before this Court at this stage. This Court has confined its discussions only to ascertain the locus of the appellant seeking leave to appeal. 56. For all the aforesaid reasons, the application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed and the instant special appeal is held to be not maintainable at the behest of the appellant Niraj Kumar Singh. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ---------- (2026) 3 ILRA 261 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. Writ A No. 1732 of 2026 with other connected cases Geeta Chandra ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration (1) Entitlement of the State, being employer, to restrict the scope of the word 'Government Office' as used in the advertisement issued for the post of Assistant Teacher in reference to the qualification. Headnotes (A) Service law - Recruitment - Post of Assistant Registrar - Qualification - Working experience of 7 years in Government office or in an office of University was required - Entitlement of the employer to restrict the scope of the word 'Government Office' - The petitioner, having experience on various posts in different institutions, claimed expansion of the word 'Government Office' - Permissibility Held : The employer is at liberty to give a restricted interpretation of word 'Government Office' as per the need of the post. The Court in writ Jurisdiction cannot force the State to expand the scope of words 'Government Office'. An employee would be treated to be an employee of Government Office only if his employment is under direct control of State or Union Government. [Para 8 (a)] 262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Note : High Court accepted the claim of candidates having experience of working in Airports Authority of India, Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, and rejected the claim of rest candidates having experience of working in Indian Air Lines Ltd., UP Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Vehicle Factory, Office of District Basic Education Officer (Contractual basis), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, MP Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran, Company Ltd., Food Corporation of India, Ordinance Factory, Assistant Teacher in Primary and Junior High School, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Security Paper Mill, Bank of Baroda and Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Corporate Bank. [Para 8 (a) to 8(t)] (E-1) List of Acts Uttar Pradesh Sate University (Centralised) Service Rules, 1975 - Rule 13. List of Keywords Examination, Candidature, Essential qualification, Strict interpretation, Restricted interpretation, Scope of words Government office. Case Arising From Impugned orders passed by the respondent rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Registrar. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner : Ashok Khare, Sr. Adv.; Siddharth Khare, Kunal Shah, Atul Kumar Shahi, Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Saksham Srivastava, Vipul Pandey, Neelabh Srivastava, Kritika Sinha, Sunil Kumar Shukla, Rahul Mishra, Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Hashim Khan, Tarun Agarwal, Sr. Adv.; Prashant Mishra and Anoop Baranwal Advs. for the Respondents : Sri Sanjeev Singh, AAG; Dhirendra Pratap Singh, SC; Avneesh Tripathi, Sanjay Kumar Om (Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Kunal Shah and Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Sri Saksham Srivastava, Sri Vipul Pandey, Sri Neelabh Srivastava, Kritika Sinha, Sri Sunil Kumar Shukla, Sri Rahul Mishra, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Sri Hashim Khan, Sri Tarun Agarwal Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prashant Mishra and Sri Anoop Baranwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjeev Singh, Learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Avneesh Tripathi and Sri Sanjay Kumar Om on behalf of respondent Commission. 2. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an Advertisement No.A-5/E-1/2024 dated 28.8.2024 for Uttar Pradesh University (Centralised) Service Assistant Registrar Examination2024. 3. Petitioners in present bunch of writ petitions have applied in said Examination and are aggrieved that despite they have an experience of 7 years as required, still their respective candidature was rejected and respective appeals thereof were also rejected. 3 All. Geeta Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 263 4. Applicable service Rules in present case is the Uttar Pradesh Sate University (Centralised) Service rules, 1975. Rule 13, of aforesaid Rules provides qualification for a post under Centralised Service, which is reproduced hereinafter:- "13. Qualifications.- A candidate to any post under the Centralised Services must possess the requisite qualification as the Commission may prescribe with the approval of the State Government." 5. Qualification for concerned post was notified through a Government notification dated 21.2.1980 that "ककसी रािकीय कायाथलय या पवश्वपवद्यालय के कायाथलय में न्यूनतम 07 वषथ का कायथ करने का अनुभव जिसके साथ अंग्रेिी तथा दहन्दी दोनों में आलेखन का ज्ञान तथा लेखा ननयमों का ज्ञान हो". 6. In the above referred background, following essential qualifications were prescribed after approval of State Government with certain modifications: " 8. शैक्षक्षक अहथतायेंः-अननवायथ (क) ककसी मान्यता प्राप्त पवश्वपवद्यालय की स्नातक उपाचध या उसके समकक्ष उपाचध। दहन्दी का अच्छा ज्ञान हो। (ख) ककसी रािकीय कायाथलय या पवश्वपवद्यालय के कायाथलय में न्यूनतम 07 वषथ का कायथ करने का अनुभव जिसके साथ अंग्रेिी तथा दहन्दी दोनों में आलेखन का ज्ञान तथा लेखा ननयमों का ज्ञान हो" 7. Petitioners before this Court have claimed that they have working experience of 7 years either in a Government Office or in an Office of University, whereas respondents have come up with a case that they are bound by a clarification issued by the State subsequently on 19.6.2025, which provides that "रािकीय कायाथलय से तात्पयथ राज्य सरकार के कायाथलय से है। उच्ि सशक्षा के संस्थान, महापवद्यालय एवं पवश्वपवद्यालय का तात्पयथ यह है कक िो राज्य सरकार, अन्य ककसी प्रदेश सरकारी अथवा भारत सरकार द्वारा संिासलत एवं उनके ननयंत्रणाधीन हो" 8. Now the Court proceeds to consider case of each petitioners. (a).Writ No. 1732 of 2026. In the present case, petitioner is working as 'Cabin Crew' in Indian Air Lines Ltd. and later on she was promoted as 'Senior Associate' in the Finance Department at same place having an experience of more than 17 years. It may be a case of petitioner that Indian Air Lines Ltd., is a State instrumentality or a Public Sector Undertaking and her service is governed by Rules and Regulations duly approved by the Central Government, but still in strict interpretation, it is not a Government Office under 'State or Union'. The employer is at liberty to give a restricted interpretation of word 'Government Office' as per the need of the post. The Court in writ Jurisdiction cannot force the State to expand the scope of words 'Government Office'. An employee would be treated to be an employee of Government Office only if his employment is under direct control of State or Union Government, therefore, her claim was rightly rejected. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (b). Writ No.1665 of 2026 In the present case, petitioner is working in Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, a Government Company. In this case also, a view taken by this Court in above mentioned Writ Petition No.1732 of 2026 is squarely applicable, therefore, his claim was rightly rejected. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (c). Writ Nos.1764 of 2026 and 2201 of 2026 The above both writ petitions are filed by one petitioner, who is working in Airports Authority of India and as submitted by learned counsel for respondents that his claim will be reconsidered as Airports Authority of India is an Office of Central Government, therefore, impugned order dated 14.1.2026 is set aside and matter is remanded to pass a fresh order in the appeal. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. (d). Writ No.2168 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., a Government undertaking, therefore, reasons assigned to dismiss in Writ-C No.1732 of 2026, are squarely applicable in present case, therefore, no interference is required in impugned order, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (e). Writ No.2225 of 2026 In present case, petitioner has worked from 2014 to 2019 in Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur and subsequently worked in Government Girls Inter College, Prayagraj. Undisputedly, the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur is a Government of India enterprises, however, it would not fall within any Government Office as observed in above referred writ petitions, therefore, his claim was rightly rejected. No interference is required in the impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (f). Writ No.2231 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, a Government undertaking, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (g). Writ No.2232 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, a Government undertaking, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (h) Writ No. 2237 of 2026. In present case, petitioner is working in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., a State Government undertaking, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (i). Writ No.2289 of 2026 3 All. Geeta Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 265 In present case, petitioner is working on contractual basis as EMIS Incharge at Office of District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya. It is not disputed that a person working on contract cannot be considered to be a regular employee in a government office, therefore, no interference is required in impugned order, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (j). Writ No.2427 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., a State Government undertaking, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.. (k). Writ No.3452 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Moradabad, a private University. The required essential qualification is 7 years of experience in the office of a University. No explanation is provided whether University is a Central, State, Private or Constituted under an Act, therefore, impugned order dated 13.2.2026 is set-aside and matter is remanded back to pass a fresh order in the Appeal after getting a clarification from the State. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (l). Writ No.2499 of 2026 This writ petition is filed by five petitioners. Petitioner-1 and 3 are working in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, petitioner-2 is working in Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd., a government undertaking, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner-4 (Trilokinath Yadav) has not filed any proof in support of his service experience, therefore, no relief can be granted. Petition is accordingly dismissed. So far as petitioner-5 (Saurabh Tiwari) is concerned, he is working under Food Corporation of India which was set up under the Food Corporation Act, 1964, an independent entity, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (m) Writ No.2516 of 2026 This writ petition is filed by 7 persons. Petitioner - 1 is working at Ordinance Factory, Jabalpur, however, petitioner- 2 to 6 are working in Ordinance Factory, Kanpur, an independent government entity, therefore, their services would also not fall under in any government office, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. So far as petitioner-7, i.e. Dilip Kumay Yadav is concerned, he is working in Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, Pune which is a deemed university. Court finds that his case requires to be reconsidered in view of observations made in Writ Petition No. 3452 of 2026, 266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES therefore, impugned order dated 2.2.2026 is set aside and matter is remanded back to pass a fresh order on Appeal. Writ Petition is disposed of qua to petitioner no.7. (n) Writ No.3112 of 2026 In the present case, petitioner is working as Middle Teacher in Datiya and as held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Writ-A No.1755 of 2026, (Mayank Vs. State of U.P.) 2026:AHC-LKO:13223, placing reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Sriram Warade & Ors, (2019) 6 SCC 362, his experience also cannot be considered for the post of Assistant Registrar, therefore, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (o) Writ No.2996 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Composite School, Senior Primary School under Basic Shiksha Adhikari, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ No. 3112 of 2026, no interference is required in impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (p) Writ No.2768 of 2026 In present case, petitioner has subsequently served under Employees State Insurance Corporation, a Corporate Body, therefore, reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026 would be applicable in present case also, therefore, no interference is required in impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (q) Writ No.3267 of 2026 In the present case, petitioner is working in Security Paper Mill, Narmadapuram, Madhya Pradesh, an undertaking of Govt. of India, therefore, for the reasons assigned in the order passed in Writ-C No.1665 of 2026 and Writ-C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is required in impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (r) Writ No.3473 of 2026 This writ petition is filed by five petitioners. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are working as Teachers in Inter College and petitioner no.3 is working as Assistant Teacher in Basic Education Department and as observed in the order passed in Writ-C No.3112 of 2026, referred above, their services cannot be considered of a Government Office, therefore, no interference is required in impugned order. The petitioner nos.4 and 5 are concerned, they are working in Bank of Baroda and Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, which are independent entities and their services cannot be considered of a Government Office. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in above referred Writ Petition No.1732 of 2026, no interference is warranted in impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (s) Writ No.2486 of 2026 This writ petition is filed by five petitioners. Service of petitioner no.1 is in a Corporate Bank and therefore, for the reasons assigned in the order passed in above referred Writ Petition No.3473 of 2026, no interference is required. 3 All. Hanumat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 267 So far as petitioner nos.2 to 5 are concerned, experience of their working as Primary Teachers, therefore, for the reasons assigned in the order passed in above referred Writ Petition No.3112 of 2026, no interference is required. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for different petitioners are distinguishable on facts. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (t) Writ No.2686 of 2026 In this case petitioner has claimed that 3 candidates were wrongly considered to be qualified having 7 years experience in any Government Office. However, Court finds that claim of the petitioners is liable to be rejected since presently Nayan Kumar, is working as Head Assistant in the Directorate of Education (Secondary) U.P. Prayagraj, undisputedly a Government Office and Sri Surendra Kumar Singh is working as Personal Assistant in Directorate of Education (Secondary) U.P. Prayagraj, also a Government Office, therefore, any objection to their inclusion for interview is baseless. So far as details of 3rd person is concerned, according to learned counsel for the respondents, details are not matched in their data, therefore, objections are liable to be rejected. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2026) 3 ILRA 267 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 31.03.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ A No. 2632 of 2008 Hanumat Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration (1) Validity of termination order passed without initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Headnotes (A) Service law - Termination - Post of Peon - Allegation of absent from duty for two days - No disciplinary proceeding was initiated - Averment in writ petition that no notice and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, has not been denied in the counter affidavit - Effect - Alternative remedy of Appeal, when not barred issuance of writ Held : The order impugned dated 16.2.2008 is being violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. The impugned order has not been challenged in appeal in view of the fact that the order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing. [Para 9] (E-1) Case Law Cited Whirlpool Corpn. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1: 1998 SCC OnLine SC 663 - referred to. List of Acts Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Regulation 31, 103 to 109 of the Regulations framed under Chapter III.