# Kuvendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 225
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-21
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 50745 of 2017
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kuvendra-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50789
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Pravidhik Shiksha
Adhiniyam, 1962 - Section 22-A - Post of
Lecturer (Economics) - Selection - Award
of the marks - Scope of interference -
Director of Technical Education found
irregularity
in
selection
process
and
therefore disapproved the appointment -
Validity challenged - Held, a close look of
the minutes of the Selection Committee
dated 22.01.1994 r/w the letter of the
Director dated 17.05.1989 clearly goes to
show that the marks have been awarded
in such a manner so as to oust the
deserving candidates - The Courts of law
cannot be a mute spectator and in case it
is
found
from
the
perusal
of
the
documents
available
on
record
that
illegality has been committed in awarding
marks then obviously, the Courts would
not interfere with the decision taken by
the appropriate authorities under the
relevant statute who are enjoined to take
decision while annulling the selections.
(Para 40)

B. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Expert's view -
Scope of interference - Director, being
expert of the matter found irregularity
in the decision of Selection Committee in
awarding
the
marks
-
Validity
of
Director's decision challenged - Held,
the Courts of law are not experts in
academic matters relating to the award
of marks by the selection committee and
they cannot travel into the mind of the
academicians who awarded marks under
various parameters - The impugned
order
passed
by
the
Director
of
Technical
Education
records
valid
reasons
for
disapproving
the
appointments
which
this
Court
in
exercise of the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India cannot
hold to be illegal, particularly when the
Director of Technical Education is an
expert of the said subject. (Para 40 and
42)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,719 of 66,000. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39719 for what follows._

9 All. Kuvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
225
39,00,000/- and apart from it he had also taken
personal loan of Rs. 49,000/-. There is another
amount of Rs. 1,01074/- which was advanced
to the petitioner for taking insurance of the
vehicle and the said amount was also to be
repaid by the petitioner in monthly installments
in which also he committed default.

14. As already noted, the petitioner
has not clarified any fact relating to the
amount taken as loan and the amount
repaid by him.

15. Consequently, we find no merit in the
present petition. The impugned order does not
call for any interference in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.

16. The petition is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 225
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J

Writ A No. 50745 of 2017

Kuvendra Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bidhan Chandra Rai, Sri Ashok Khare,
Sri Bhaiya Lal Yadav, Sri V.K. Upadhyay
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Sri G.C.
Saxena S.C., Sri Shashi Nandan (Sr.
Advocate).

A. Service Law - UP Pravidhik Shiksha
Adhiniyam, 1962 - Section 22-A - Post of
Lecturer (Economics) - Selection - Award
of the marks - Scope of interference -
Director of Technical Education found
irregularity
in
selection
process
and
therefore disapproved the appointment -
Validity challenged - Held, a close look of
the minutes of the Selection Committee
dated 22.01.1994 r/w the letter of the
Director dated 17.05.1989 clearly goes to
show that the marks have been awarded
in such a manner so as to oust the
deserving candidates - The Courts of law
cannot be a mute spectator and in case it
is
found
from
the
perusal
of
the
documents
available
on
record
that
illegality has been committed in awarding
marks then obviously, the Courts would
not interfere with the decision taken by
the appropriate authorities under the
relevant statute who are enjoined to take
decision while annulling the selections.
(Para 40)

B. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Expert's view -
Scope of interference - Director, being
expert of the matter found irregularity
in the decision of Selection Committee in
awarding
the
marks
-
Validity
of
Director's decision challenged - Held,
the Courts of law are not experts in
academic matters relating to the award
of marks by the selection committee and
they cannot travel into the mind of the
academicians who awarded marks under
various parameters - The impugned
order
passed
by
the
Director
of
Technical
Education
records
valid
reasons
for
disapproving
the
appointments
which
this
Court
in
exercise of the jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India cannot
hold to be illegal, particularly when the
Director of Technical Education is an
expert of the said subject. (Para 40 and
42)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Asha Saxena Vs S.K. Chaudhari & ors.; 1991
(17) ALR 267 (FB)
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Writ C No. 5497 of 2020; Dr. Prasannanshu
Vs
Selection
Committee
Vice
Chancellor,
National Law University, Delhi & Anr. decided on
14.09.2020

3. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53334 of 1999;
Rajendra Bharti Vs Director of Technical
Education, U.P. Kanpur & ors. decided on
20.05.2004

4. Dr. Salik Tewari Vs Chancellor, Gorakhpur
University & ors.;1999 (1) AWC 407

5. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs University of Rajasthan;
1993 Supp (3) SCC 168

6. B.C. Mylarappa @ Dr. Chikkamylarappa Vs
Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah & ors.; JT 2008 (11) SC
73

7. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21318 of 2004;
Ramesh Pati Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
decided on 02.04.2007

8. Writ A No. 19620 of 2014; Amar Pal Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. decided on 08.01.2014

9. Srikantha S.M. Vs Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
decided on 07.10.2005

10. J.N. Srivastava Vs U.O.I.; AIR 1999 SC
1571

11. Dr. Keshav Ram Pal Vs U.P. Higher
Education Services Commission; AIR 1986 SC
597

12. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vs
U.O.I. & ors.; 1986 (1) SCC 133

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Shri V.K. Upadhyay, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Bhaiya Lal
Yadav along with Sri Bidhan Chandra Rai,
learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri
Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri G.C. Saxena, learned
Standing Counsel for State-respondents and
Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
who
appears
for
third
and
fourth
respondents.

2. The brief facts of the case shorn of
unnecessary details as worded in the writ
petition are that the third respondent, M.G.
Polytechnic, Hathras (in short 'Institute') is
affiliated to Board of Technical Education
governed under the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam,
1962, U.P. Act No. XVII of 1962 (in short
'1962 Act') possessing an approved scheme
of administration under Section 22-A of
1962 Act.

3. Records reveal that a government
order was issued on 08.04.1991 addressed
to
the
second
respondent,
Director,
Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P.
providing for creation of four post of
Lecturers in Electronics discipline in the
third respondent- institute amongst other
posts.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner
that as per the provisions contained under
the approved Scheme of Administration of
the third respondent- institute, a selection
committee was contemplated to conduct
selections which consisted of (i) Chairman,
Managing
Committee
or
a
person
nominated by him/her, (ii) An expert
selected
by
Chairman
of
Managing
Committee out of the panel of experts
prepared
by
Director
of
Technical
Education, (iii) A representative of the
Director of Technical Education, (iv) One
representative of All India Council of
Teacher Education/Northern region office
of Government of India, Ministry of
Education (Technical) and; (v) Principal.

5. In para 6 of the writ petition, it has
been further averred that in order to
9 All. Kuvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
227
conduct selections for appointment on the
post of Lecturers in various disciplines as
per the Scheme of Administration, the
second respondent Director, Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical
Education, District Kanpur, U.P. nominated
a selection committee in particular for the
post of Lecturer (Electronics), one Sri K.K.
Tripathi,
Head
of
the
Department,
Electronics Engineering, HBTI, Kanpur
was
made
expert
member.
An
advertisement was also published by the
third respondent-institution in employment
newspaper
on
8.10.1993
inviting
applications from the eligible candidates
for being considered for appointment
against several vacancies of Lecturers in
the third respondent institution including
two post of Lecturers in Electronics.

6. The writ petitioner claiming
himself to be fully eligible and qualified in
all respects while working on the post of
Corporal
in
Indian Air
force
since
27.12.1993 applied for the post of Lecturer
in
Electronics
on
13.10.1993.
The
petitioner was issued an interview letter to
appear in the interview. Writ petitioner
claims to have appeared in the interview.

7. In para 10 of the writ petition, it
has been further averred that the selection
committee
comprising
of
Sri
K.K.
Tripathi,
Head
of
the
Department
Electronics Engineering HBTI, Kanpur
along with expert members comprising of
Sri Y.P. Singh, President of Managing
Committee
and
G.P.
Singh
Principal/Secretary
of
Committee
of
Institution in question on the basis of the
marks obtained by the writ petitioner
found him to be suitable and forwarded
the entire documents in this regard before
the
second
respondent-Director,
Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical Education, District Kanpur,
U.P.

8. As per the writ petitioner in
purported
exercise
of
the
powers
conferred
under
Sub-section
(3)
of
section 22-F of the 1962 Act, the
Managing
Committee
of
the
third
respondent
proceeded
to
issue
an
appointment order in favour of the writ
petitioner on 12.03.1994 appointing him
on the post of Lecturer (Electronics).

9. Proceedings of the selection
committee dated 22.01.1994 was placed
in
the
meeting
of
the
Managing
Committee which was also approved by
the Managing Committee vide minutes
dated 14.05.1994.

10. Writ petitioner in para 13 and 14
of the writ petition has further averred
that he has wide experience to his credit
and his selection was based on merit.

11. Petitioner further claims to have
been accorded joining on 23.04.1994 and
he was assigned various assignments
which he carried out to the satisfaction of
the
third
respondent
in
question.
Appreciation letters have also been
appointed by the writ petitioner reference
whereof has been given in para 17, 18
and 19 of the writ petition.

12. Since the regular pay scale/salary
was not being extended to the petitioner
and one Sri Amit Mishra, who was also
sailing on the same boat, so they preferred
writ petition No. 106 of 1996 (S.B.)
seeking relief for a mandamus commanding
the respondents therein to pay regular
salary to the petitioners from the date of the
appointment with all consequential benefits
including arrears.
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. However, in the meantime, on
18.03.1994 an order passed by the second
respondent, Director, Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education, District
Kanpur, U.P. whereby the appointment of
the writ petitioner was disapproved on the
post
of
Lecturer
(Electronics).
Consequently, an amendment application
was filed in the said writ petition which
was allowed. Subsequently, the said writ
petition was transferred to this court from
the Lucknow bench and was re-numbered
as Civil Misc. Writ A No. 25791 of 1997.

14. Records further reveal that the
officiating
Principal
of
the
third
respondent- institution passed an order
dated 14.03.2001 terminating the services
of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner
filed of Writ A No. 11976 of 2001
(Kuvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others).

15. In the said writ petition, an
interim order was passed on 30.03.2001,
which is extracted as under:

"Until
further
orders,
the
operation of the impugned order dated
14.03.2001 and dispossession of the
petitioner from the official accommodation
shall remain stayed."

16. The Writ A No. 25791 of 1997
(Amit Mishra and another Vs. State of UP
and another) challenging the order dated
18.03.1994
passed
by
the
second
respondent, Director, Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education, District
Kanpur,
U.P.
came
up
for
final
consideration on 23.08.2016, wherein the
order dated 18.03.1994 passed by the
second respondent was set aside observing
that the premise on which the disapproval
has been made was non-existent as
approval was not needed of the second
respondent at the stage of conducting
selection but approval was needed prior to
the issuance of the appointment order, in
view of the language employed under
Section 22 (F) of the 1962 Act. However, in
the operative portion of the order while
setting aside the order dated 18.03.1994,
the second respondent, Director, Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical
Education, District Kanpur, U.P. was
directed to examine the matter afresh and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law. The operative portion of the judgment
and order dated 28.03.2016 passed in WritA No. 25791 of 1997 (Amit Mishra and
another Vs. State of U.P. and another) is
being quoted below;

"17. Director now shall examine
the matter afresh and pass a appropriate
order in accordance with law and if he does
find any otherwise valid reason for
disapproval, approval shall be granted and
petitioner
shall
be
entitled
to
all
consequential benefits from the date of
their appointment.

18. In the result and subject to
above direction, the writ petition is
allowed. Impugned order dated 18.03.1994
is hereby set aside."

17. On the same day, the writ petition
preferred by the writ petitioner, Writ A No.
11976 of 2001 challenging the termination
order dated 14.03.2001 passed by the third
respondent-institution came to be allowed
entitling
the
writ
petitioner
for
all
consequential benefits.

18. Pleadings further reveal that the
order dated 23.08.2016 passed in both the
writ petitions was subject matter of
challenge in SLP(C) ..... CC No. 6810 of
9 All. Kuvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
229
2017 and SLP (C) ..... CC No. 8260 of
2017 before the Apex Court which came to
be dismissed as withdrawn on 01.05.2017
with liberty to approach high court by way
of filing review petition.

19. It has also been informed that the
review applications preferred by the
respondents
have
been
rejected
on
04.12.2019.

20. Post remand, now the second
respondent, Director, Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education, District
Kanpur, U.P. has proceeded to pass an
order date 13.09.2017 cancelling the entire
selection process while holding that the
selection process was not in accordance
with the law.

21. Questioning the order dated
13.09.2017 second respondent, Director,
Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P.
as well as seeking mandamus directing the
respondents to restore the recommendation
of
the
selection
committee
dated
22.01.1994 for a selection and appointment
of
the
writ
petitioner
as
Lecturer
(Electronics) in the third respondentinstitution, the present writ petition has
been filed.

22. While entertaining the present
writ petition on 01.11.2017, the order dated
13.09.2017 was kept in abeyance and
notices were issued to the third and fourth
respondent calling response.

23. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of first and second respondent
sworn by the Head of the Department,
Computer Government Girls Polytechnic,
Allahabad on 15.12.2017 to which a
rejoinder affidavit has been filed on
11.03.2018. On behalf of respondent Nos. 3
and 4 who happens to be the Managing
Committee of the Committee in question
and the Principal, a counter affidavit has
been filed on 03.04.2018 to which a
rejoinder affidavit has been filed on
14.04.2018.
Further
a
supplementary
affidavit has been filed dated 18.09.2001
which is available on record.

24. A compilation of the judgments
has also been filed which is also on record.

25. Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Bhaiya Lal Yadav
along with Sri Bidhan Chandra Rai, learned
counsel for the writ petitioner have sought
to argue that the order dated 13.09.2017
passed by the second respondent, Director,
Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P.
suffers from patent illegality and cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law on various
grounds, firstly the selections are of the
year 1994 and they could not have been
canceled after a period of approximately 13
years, particularly, when the writ petitioner
was
appointed
through
a
selection
committee constituted in accordance with
the scheme of administration duly approved
by
the
second
respondent,
Director,
Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P.
pursuant
to
an
advertisement
and
conferring of benefit while issuing of an
appointment order on 12.03.1994 and
joining on 23.04.1994. Secondly, the order
dated 18.03.1994 passed by the second
respondent-Director, Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education, District
Kanpur, U.P. did not question the selection
and the appointment of the writ petitioner
on the ground of any illegality committed
in the selections, however, the only ground
taken for disapproval was that prior
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
approval of the Director was not taken
before conducting selections and once the
said ground stood disapproved in a judicial
scrutiny by this Court affirmed up to the
Apex Court and in review petitions then
taking of a new ground questioning the
selections is totally impermissible as it
amounts to be an afterthought just to
denude the writ petitioner of his legitimate
rights. Thirdly, a procedure has been
contemplated under the statute itself being
the Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha
Adhiniyam, 1962 for the purposes of
prescribing qualifications of appointment
of Principal and Teachers and the mode of
selections, then the guidelines/the letter of
the second respondent, Director, Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical
Education, District Kanpur, U.P. addressed
to the Principals of the institution dated
17.05.1989 would not apply and thus while
adopting the said criteria with regard to
holding the selection to be illegal is not
permissible.
Fourthly,
the
selection
committee has selected a candidate on the
basis of over all assessment then the second
respondent, Director, Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education, District
Kanpur, U.P. has no authority under law to
annul the said decision while holding the
said selection to be illegal. Fifthly, while
taking
a
decision
for
approving
or
disapproving the selection/appointment, the
second respondent, Director, Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical
Education, District Kanpur, U.P. was not
required to go into the issue with regard to
the subjective and the objective analysis of
the selection committee while awarding
marks and further in absence of any
provision contained in the statute in
question nothing could be borrowed from
outside. Sixthly, the order of the Director of
Technical Education impugned in the writ
petition tantamount to review which is
thoroughly impermissible as fresh grounds
have been injected to the denude the claim
of the writ petition.

26. In a nutshell, the argument of
learned Senior Counsel who appears for the
writ petitioner is that the selection of the
writ petitioner on the post of Lecturer
(Electronics) was strictly in accordance
with law as per the scheme of the
administration approved by the Director
Technical Education, thus, there being no
complaint of any corner, the selections
could not be said to be illegal, particularly,
when the grounds which have been taken
post remand were never the ground which
was earlier pressed into service.

27. Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior
Counsel for the writ petitioner further
summits that the guidelines which the
respondents are proposing to apply in the
selections which has been issued under the
signatures of the Director, Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical
Education, District Kanpur, U.P. addressed
to the Principals of Aided Institutions in the
State of Uttar Pradesh is in a form of a
letter, as such it does not partake the
character of any Rule, Regulation or a
Government Order and thus it tantamounts
to introduce certain aspects which are not
provided under the act itself, consequently,
the said letter even does violence to the
statutory enactment and the same is ultra
vires. It is thus, being sought to be argued
that any direction issued by the second
respondent-Director, Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education, District
Kanpur, U.P. which is not contemplated
under the Rules cannot be pressed into
service so as to point out any deficiency in
the selections. Submission is, only under
the statutory provisions of the 1962 Act, the
power vest under Section 22 of the 1962
9 All. Kuvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
231
Act to frame rules and under Section 24 to
make bylaws. As the letter of the second
respondent-Director, Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education, District
Kanpur, U.P. dated 17.05.1989 does not
either qualify to be a rule or regulation,
thus, the respondents could not have
canceled the selection on the premise that
the guidelines stipulated in the said letter
was not followed while making selections.
Further submission has been made on
behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ
petitioner had got himself discharged from
Indian Air force and had applied for the
post in question, hence it would be quite
hard to cancel the selections in the year
2017 which were held in the year 1994 as
in the entire service and academic career
would be jeopardized. Accordingly, he
prays that the order impugned in the writ
petition dated 13.09.2017 passed by the
second
respondent-Director,
Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical
Education, District Kanpur, U.P. be set
aside and the writ petitioner be accorded all
the benefits as sought in toto.

28. Countering the said submission
Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena for
the State-respondents has argued that the
decision of the second respondent-Director,
Technical
Education,
Directorate
of
Technical Education, District Kanpur, U.P.
is perfectly valid in accordance with law
and no fault whatsoever can be attributed in
that regard. He submits that though, the
advertisement was issued in the year 1993
and the selections were conducted in the
year 1994, however, the second respondentDirector, Technical Education, Directorate
of Technical Education, District Kanpur,
U.P. proceeded to decline approval to the
appointment of the writ petitioner on a
wrong premise that prior approval was
needed under Section 22-F of the 1962 Act
before conducting selections, however the
same was rightly turned down in the writ
proceedings at the behest of the writ
petitioner in Writ A- No. 25791 of 1997
decided on 23.08.2016 while remitting the
matter back to the second respondentDirector, Technical Education, Directorate
of Technical Education, District Kanpur,
U.P. to examine the matter a fresh and to
pass appropriate orders. Consequent to the
examination of the entire issue after
perusing the record, the second respondentDirector, Technical Education, Directorate
of Technical Education, District Kanpur,
U.P.
found
that
there
were
glaring
irregularities conducted in the selection by
the selection committee which occasioned
passing of the impugned order.

29. Submission is that there is no
delay in cancellation of the selection as
consequent
to
the
order
passed
on
23.08.2016 by Writ Court when the issue
was examined then in the year 2017, the
order impugned has been passed on
13.09.2017. He submits that in the wake of
the fact that the order dated 13.08.1994 was
an order which even in fact was not passed
after examining the criteria and the
procedure adopted by Selection Committee
but the same was passed on the premise
that prior approval before selection was not
taken from the second respondent, thus it is
contended
that
the
action
of
the
respondents cannot be faulted. Sri Shashi
Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the
State while inviting the attention towards
the order impugned in the writ petition has
submitted that with respect to the selection
of Lecturer (Electronics), two posts were
advertised and as many as 110 applicants
applied. He submits that as per the minutes
of the selection committee, the first page of
the same has been signed by the Dr. G.B.
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh, Principal, Sri K.K. Tripathi, Special
Secretary and Sri Y.P. Singh, chairman,
however the second page wherein a chart
has been tabulated containing the heading
of
academic
qualification,
technical
qualification, attainment of marks over and
above the minimum qualification and
interview, there is a signature only of the
Principal, members-Secretary, however the
signature
of
Special-Secretary
and
chairman are found missing and in the third
page, the signatures of three members is
already
there.
It
is
being
further
demonstrated
that
once
a
selection
committee comprises of three members
then obviously separate marks is to be
awarded under the aforesaid heading by all
the three members, however there has been
no separate marks awarded by the three
members which even in fact is a glaring
irregularity.
While
drawing
attention
towards the letter of the Director dated
17.05.1989 providing for the guidelines and
the yardsticks according to which marks
are to be awarded by the members of the
selections committee under different heads,
it is sought to be submitted that the entire
selection has been tailored in such a
manner so as to confer benefit to the
petitioner herein and one Sri Amit Mishra
as in the case of the writ petitioner
(Kuvendra Pal Singh), he obtained only 5
marks under the parameter of academic
qualification maximum marks being 10 and
20 marks under the parameter of technical
qualification
maximum
40
marks.
However, he was awarded 29 marks under
the parameters of viva voce, maximum 30
marks. So far as Amit Mishra is concerned,
he also obtained 5 marks under the
parameter of academic qualifications out of
10 marks and 30 marks under the
parameters
of
Technical
qualification
maximum whereof is 40 marks and 28
marks in viva voce totally 30 marks just in
order to secure selection to them as the
other candidates namely Atul Srivastava
and Km. Jyoti Rawat, Ashok Kumar, they
were
awarded
10
marks
under
the
parameter of academic qualification, 40
marks under the parameter of technical
qualification, and they were awarded only 8
marks in interview. Illustration to the said
effect has been given in the case of Atul
Goyal, Piyush Chandra Gupta, Arvind
Srivastava, etc. Additionally, it has been
argued that as per the letter of the second
respondent-Director, Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education, District
Kanpur, U.P. dated 17.05.1989 in case a
candidate possesses higher qualifications
then the minimum qualification so required
then the maximum marks would be 20 and
looking
into
the
qualification
and
experience, the marks would be awarded
and so far as the marks with regard to
experience is concerned, two marks are to
be awarded each year maximum to 10.

30. The submission is that since in the
interview 1/3rd marks were required for
being selected being 10 marks out of 30
marks, the selection committee just in order
to eliminate the chances of deserving
candidates had awarded less than 10 marks
under the criteria interview out of marks 30
marks, despite the fact that those candidates
had obtained higher marks under the
parameters of Academic qualification and
Technical qualification. According to the
learned Counsel for the respondents, the
letter
of
the
Director
of
Technical
Education dated 17.05.1989 was loud and
clear and the same cannot be said to be
ultra vires of any of the provisions
contained under the 1962 Act. Additionally,
it is also argued that in the normal conduct
of business it is widely known that the
selecting body, the case may be either U.P.
Public Service Commission or Union
9 All. Kuvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
233
Public Service Commission and U.P.
Subordinate Service Selection Commission
they can device there own procedure for
awarding marks under different category,
once the same does not find presence in the
statutes.

31. Apart from the same, it has been
further argued that under Section 22-F of
the 1962 Act, deliberately the word
"approved" has been employed which
signifies that the Director before taking a
decision either to approve or disaprove the
selection or the appointments has to apply
its independent mind after going through
the records in order to be satisfied as to
whether the selections were held in a legal
manner or not. Thus, it is being sought to
be argued that the Director cannot act as a
post-office while putting his rubber stamp
without perusing and being satisfied in that
regard.

32. Before embarking an enquiry
upon the arguments advanced by the rival
parties with relation to the legality and
validity of the orders impugned in the writ
petition. it would be apposite to notice not
only relevant statutory provisions but also
the documents which would be germane for
deciding the controversy in question.

Minutes of Selection Committee dated
22.01.1994
चयि सकमकत िी ब ठि कदिांि 22.01.1994 िी
िायगवाही िी संिग्िि अंि ताकििा।
प्रवक्ता इिेक्राकिक्स पवद (सामान्य)
क्र०सं०
अभ्याथी िा िाम
ऐिेिेकमि
योग्यता िे
आधार पर
प्राप्ांि
टेक्िीिि
योग्यता
िे
आधार
पर
प्राप्ांि
न्यूितम से
अकधि
योग्यता िे
आधार पर
प्राप्ांि
साक्षा
त्िार
िे
आधार
पर
प्राप्ांि
1
श्री अकिि िुमार
सोिी
10
30
-
10
2
श्री राम िमि शमाग 10
30
-
8
3
श्री अतुि श्रीवास्तव 10
40
-
8
4
श्री आघास िुमार
शमाग
10
20
-
10
5
श्री राहुि वमाग
10
30
-
5
6
श्री कवक्रम कसंह पवार 10
20
-
12
7
 श्री मो० सुल्ताि
अहमद अन्सारी
0
20
-
10
8
श्री
सत्यप्रिाश
कतवारी
5
30
-
10
9
श्री
अिुि िुमार
सक्सेिा
5
40
-
9
10
श्री बसन्त िुमार
10
30
-
10
11
श्री अवधेश िुमार
र्ौतम
5
20
-
8
12
श्री िरेन्र कसंह
10
30
-
11
13
श्री
उपेन्र
िुमार
शुक्िा
10
30
-
12
14
िु० ज्योकत रावत
10
40
-
8
15
 श्री अतुि र्ोयि
10
40
-
4
16
श्री किवास अर्िोरा
10
20
-
10
17
श्री
अरकवन्द
श्रीवास्तव
10
40
-
3
18
श्री
रािेश िुमार
तम या
10
30
-
10
19
श्री कपयूष चन्र र्ुप्ा
10
40
-
9
20
श्री संिय िुमार
10
20
-
8
21
ज्योकत स्वरूप र्ुप्ा
10
30
-
11
22
श्री कववेि श्रीवास्तव 10
30
-
10
23
श्री मिोि िुमार
कमत्ति
10
30
-
10
24
श्री अशोि िुमार
10
40
-
8
25
श्री मोहम्मद सिीम
वेर्
10
40
-
9
26
श्री र्ोकवन्द िुमार
शमाग
10
30
-
11
27
श्री
देवेश
िुमार
कद्ववेदी
10
30
-
12
28
श्री सुशीि िुमार कसंह 5
30
-
10
29
श्री िािी प्रिाश
श्रीवास्तव
10
30
-
13
30
श्री रािेश कतवारी
5
20
-
9
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
31
श्री रामफि सत्याथी 5
20
-
9
32
श्री कविय िुमार
शुक्िा
10
20
-
10
33
श्री िुवेन्रपाि कसंह
5
20
-
29
34
श्री रािीव िुमार कसंह 5
30
-
10
35
श्री रािीव िुमार र्ुप्ा 10
30
-
8
36
श्री रििेश िुमार
यादव
5
30
-
12
37
श्री शरद संिीव शमाग 10
10
-
10
38
श्री मौि अहमद इदशी 10
30
-
11
39
श्री वीरेन्र िुमार कसंह 10
30
-
10
40
श्री प्राणेश िुमार
10
30
-
10
41
श्री कविय िुमार
अग्रवाि
10
30
-
12
42
श्री सुशीि िुमार
शमाग
5
20
-
5
43
श्री योर्ेन्र कसंह
5
30
-
5
44
श्री महेशपाि कसंह
चौहाि
10
20
-
12
45
श्री हेमन्त पुरोकहत
10
30
-
10
46
श्री सन्दीप अग्रवाि 10
30
-
10
47
श्रीमती
अन्िुि
र्ंर्वार
10
40
-
8
48
श्रीमती
किज्ञासा
आत्रेय
5
30
-
10
49
श्री योर्ेन्र कसंह
5
20
-
5
50
श्री मकियाि
10
30
-
12
51
श्री सुदीप िुमार पण्िा 5
30
-
11
52
श्री रािेन्र प्रसाद
यादव
10
20
-
8
53
श्री हरीपाि यादव
10
30
-
10
54
श्री अिुरूद्ध िुमार
रांर्ा
5
30
-
10
55
श्री अकमत कमश्रा
5
30
-
28
56
श्री आत्माराम
10
30
-
10
57
श्री सदरसू महेश्वरी
10
30
-
10
58
श्री उमेश कसंह
5
30
-
11
59
श्री िकपि िुमार
श्रीवास्तव
10
30
-
12
60
श्री कदिेश चन्र
10
30
-
12
61
श्री
प्रमोद
िुमार
अग्रवाि
5
30
-
12
62
श्री हेमचन्र कवष्ट
10
30
-
12
63
श्री सत्य िामत
10
30
-
10
64
श्री रािीव रन्िि
पाण्िेय
10
30
-
11

(िा० िी०पी० कसंह (िे०िे० कत्रपाठी) (वाई०पी० कसंह)

प्रधािाचायग कवशेषज्ञ सकचव, अध्यक्ष, प्रबन्ध सकमकत,

सदस्य सकचव हेि आफ किपाटगमेंट, एम०िी०
 प्रबन्ध सकमकत, इिेक्राकिक्स, इंिी०, पािीटेकक्िि, हाथरस।

एम०िी० एच०बी०टी०आई,
 पािीटेकक्िि, िािपुर।

हाथरस।

Order dated 13.09.2017 of the Director
of Technical Education

मा० उच्च न्यायािय द्वारा पाररत उक्त आदेश िे
अिुपािि में याचीर्णों िे चयि िे अिुमोदि पर किणगय किये िािे
हेतु संस्था एम०िी० पािीटेकक्िि, हाथरस में चयि सकमकत द्वारा
प्रवक्ता इिेक्राकिक्स िे 02 पद एंव प्रवक्ता कवद्युत िे 02 पद पर
िी र्ई चयि िी िायगवाही से सम्बकन्धत संस्था प्रधािाचायग िे पत्र
सं० 16 ई०एस०(ए)/481 कदिांि 15.02.1994 द्वारा प्रेकषत
प्रस्ताव एंव संिग्ि अकभिेिों िा पुिैः परीक्षण किया र्या, किसमें
किम्ि िकमयां/त्रुकटयां पाई र्ईैः-

1- संस्था िे प्रेकषत पत्र कदिांि 15.02.1994
द्वारा प्रवक्ता इिेक्राकिक्स िे 02 पद हेतु 110 अभ्यकथगयों िे प्राप्
आवेदि पत्रों िे आधार पर उििा कववरण उकल्िकित िरते हुए 7
पृष्ठो पत्र संिग्ि ह तथा प्रवक्ता कवद्युत (सामान्य) िे 01 पद हेतु
िोई कववरण पत्र संिग्ि िहीं से कमिाि (स्क्रीकिंर्) िरते हुए प्राप्
व ध आवेदि पत्र एंव किरस्त किये र्ये आवेदि पत्रों िा किमागण िर
व ध आवेदिितागओं िो साक्षात्िार हेतु बुिािे िा किमागण किया
िािा चाकहए था, परन्तु उक्त पपत्रों पर ि तो चयि सकमकत िे सदस्यों
िे हस्ताक्षर हैं और ि ही िन्म अिुभव प्रमाण पत्रों िा मान्य/अमान्य
मािे िािे िे सम्बन्ध में िोई कटप्पणी अंकित िी र्ई ह िो कियमों
िे पररप्रेक्ष्य में सही िहीं ह ।

2. प्रवक्त इिेक्राकिक्स िे पदों पर र्कठत चयि
सकमकत िी ब ठि कदिांि 22.1.1994 से सम्बकन्धत अंिो िा
चाटग प्रेकषत किया र्या ह , किसमें 64 अभ्यकथगयों िा चयि सकमकत
द्वारा साक्षात्िार िे पश्चात प्रदत्त अंिों िा कववरण 02 पृष्ठों में प्रेकषत
किया र्या ह , किसमें प्रथम पृष्ठ पर मात्र तत्िािीि प्रधािाचायग,
एम०िी० पािीटेकक्िि, हाथरस िे ही हस्ताक्षर हैं तथा सकमकत िे
9 All. Kuvendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
235
अन्य 02 सदस्यों िे हस्ताक्षर िहीं ह । पृष्ठ-2 पर चयि सकमकत िे
तीिों सदस्यों क्रमशैः 1- िा० िी०पी० कसंह, प्राधािाचायग/सदस्यसकचव, 2-श्री िे०िे० कत्रपाठी कवशेषज्ञ/सदस्य, (इिेक्राकिक्स) 3श्री वाई०पी० कसंह, अध्यक्ष, प्रबन्ध सकमकत द्वारा हस्ताक्षर किये र्ये
ह । प्रथम पृष्ठ पर मात्र प्रधािाचायग िे हस्ताक्षर होिे से चयि सकमकत
िे सभी सदस्यों द्वारा साक्षात्िार िे अंि प्रधाि किये र्ये ह , कसद्ध
िहीं होता ह तथा एिि हस्ताक्षर होिे िे िारण उसिो बदिे िािे
(Manipulation) िी सम्भाविा से भी इन्िार िहीं किया िा
सिता ह । कियमािुसार अंि चाटग िे सभी पृष्ठों चयि सकमकत िे सभी
सदस्यों िे हस्ताक्षर होिे आवश्यि हैं, क्योंकि चिय सकमकत िे सभी
सदस्यों द्वारा साक्षात्िार िे अंि प्रदाि किये िाते हैं।

3. चयि सकमकत द्वारा अभ्यकथगयों िा साक्षात्िार
किम्ि आधार पर किये िािे िा उल्िेि किया र्या ह ैः-

ऐिेिेकमि योग्यता टेकक्ििि
योग्यता
न्यूितम से अकधि
योग्यता
साक्षात्िार िे अकधितम अंि
10
40
20
30

उक्त संदभग में किदेशि प्राकवकधि कशक्षा, उत्तर प्रदेश
िे पत्र सं० 17-35 ए०िी० ि म्प/ई-35-एक्स कवकवध कदिांि
17.05.1989 द्वारा समस्त प्रधािाचायग, सहायता प्राप् बहुधंधी
संस्थाि, उत्तर प्रदेश िो कियुकक्त हेतु श कक्षि योग्यता, अिुभव तथा
साक्षात्िार िे किए अंिों िे मापदण्ि िा किधागरण किया र्या ह ,
किसमें व्याख्याता पद हेतु इण्िरमीकिएट प्रथम श्रेणी-10 अंि,
कद्वतीय श्रेणी-05 अंि, (अकधितम-10 अंि) किग्री 75 प्रकतशत
से अकधि-40 अंि, प्रथम श्रेणी-30 अंि, कद्वतीय श्रेणी-20
अंि, (अकधितम-40 अंि) किधागररत अहगता से उच्च प्राकवकधि
अहगता-10 अंि, अिुभव िे किए 02 अंि प्रकतवषग अकधितम
10 अंि (िुि 20 अंि) (अहगता तथा अिुभव िी प्रिृकत िो
देिते हुए चयि सकमकत द्वारा अंि कदये िायेर्ें) तथा साक्षात्िार हेतु
30 अंि (साक्षात्िार में एि कतहाई से िम अंि प्राप् होिे पर चयि
िहीं किया िायेर्ा) िुि 100 अंि िा किधागरण िरते हुए चयि
किये िािे िा प्राकवधाि किया र्या ह ।

उपयुगक्त आदेश िे पररपेक्ष्य में चयि सकमकत द्वारा
न्यूितम से अकधि योग्यता िे 20 अंि प्रदकशगत किये र्ये हैं तथा
अिुभव से सम्बकन्धत किसी भी अभ्यथी िो िोई भी अंि आवंकटत
िही किया र्या ह , िो कियमािुसार सही िहीं ह ।

चयि सकमकत िी ब ठि कदिांि 22.01.1994 िी
िायगवाही िे साथ संिग्ि अंि चाटग क्रमांि-19, क्रमांि-24,
क्रमांि-25 पर दशागये र्ये अभ्यकथगयों िो एिेिकमि एंव टेकक्ििि
योग्यता िे अंि10+40 तथा क्रमांि-9 िे अभ्यथी िो
05+40 अंि कदया िािा प्रदकशगत ह , िो कि अकधितम अंि ह ।
परन्तु इि अभ्यकथगयो िो चयि सकमकत द्वारा सुकियोकित तरीिे से
साक्षात्िार में 03 से 09 अंि प्रदाि किये र्ये ह , ताकि उििो
चयि से वंकचत रिा िा सिे, चूंकि किदेशि, प्राकवकधि कशक्षा,
उत्तर प्रदेश िे पत्र कदिांि 17.05.1989 में साक्षात्िार में एि
कतहाई से िम अंि प्राप् होिे पर चयि िही किया िायेर्ा, िा
उल्िेि ह । संिग्ि अंि चाटग िे प्रथम पृष्ठ पर मात्र प्रधािाचायग िे ही
हस्ताक्षर होिे िे िारण (चयि सकमकत िे समस्त सदस्यों िे हस्ताक्षर
ि होिे िे िारण) उक्त पृष्ठ िो बदिे िािे अथवा
(Manipulation) किये िािे िी सम्भावि ह । अतैः उक्त
िायगवाही कियमों िे पररपेक्ष्य में त्रुकटपूणग एंव कियम कवरूद्ध ह ।

4. चयि सकमकत द्वारा प्रेकषत अंि ताकििा में 64
अभ्यकथगयों में 62 अभ्यकथगयों िा साक्षात्िार में न्यूितम 03 एंव
अकधितम 13 अंि ही प्रधाि किये र्ये ह तथा मात्र 02 अभ्यथी
अकमत कमश्रा िो 28 अंि कदये र्ये ह , किसमें प्रथम स्थाि पर
चयकित श्री अकमत कमश्रा िे (05+30+28) िुि 63 अंि तथा
कद्वतीय स्थाि पर चयकित श्री िुवेन्र पाि कसंह िो
(05+20+29) िुि 54 अंि तथा प्रतीक्षा सूची में श्री िािी
प्रसाद श्रीवास्तव िे (10+30+13) िुि 53 अंि होते ह ।
िबकि पूणग चयि सूची में 09 अभ्यथी किििे एिेिकमि योग्यता िे
10 अंि और टेकक्ििि योग्यता (किग्री) िे 75 प्रकतशत अंि से
अकधि होिे िे िारण 40 अंि अथागत िुि 50 अंि पूवग से ही
किधागररत होिे िे िारण, सुकियोकित तरीिे से साक्षात्िार में एि
कतहाई से िम अंि प्रदाि िरते हुए उििा चयि िहीं किया र्या
क्योकि साक्षात्िार में एि कतहाई से िम अंि प्राप् होिे पर चयि
िही किया िायेर्ा िा उल्िेि सकमकत िे तीिों सदस्यों द्वारा
साक्षात्िार िे समय अभ्यकथगयों िो कदये र्ये अंिों िा अिर् अिर्
कववरण पत्र संिग्ि िही ह , कियमािुसार तीिों सदस्यों द्वारा कदये र्ये
अंिो िा औसत कििाि िर साक्षात्िार िे अंि प्रदाि किये िािे
चाकहए थे तथा उक्त िायगवाही किये िािे िी कस्थकत में सभी 64
अभ्यकथगयों िे साक्षात्िार िे अंि पूणाांि में िही हो सिते, उक्त से
स्पष्ट ह कि चयि सकमकत द्वारा कियमािुसार चयि िी िायगवाही पूणग
िहीं िी र्ई, अतैः चयि िी िायगवाही त्रुकटपूणग ह । उक्त से स्पष्ट होता
ह कि उक्त चयि प्रकक्रया किष्पक्ष/पारदशी रूप से सम्पन्ि िहीं िी
र्यी ह ।

5. किदेशि, प्राकवकधि कशक्षा िे पत्र कदिांि
17.05.1989 द्वारा सहायता प्राप् संस्थाओं में सीधी भती से
कियुकक्त हेतु र्कठत चयि सकमकतयों िे किये श कक्षि योग्यता, अिुभव
तथा साक्षात्िार िे किये अंिो िे मापदण्ि िा किधागरण किया र्या,
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
किसमें व्याख्याता पद हेतु अिुभव िे अभ्यकथगयों िी योग्यता अिुभव
िे कववरण पत्र में अभ्यकथगयों िे दशागये र्ये अिुभव िे आधार पर
अिुभव िे िोई अंि प्रदाि िहीं किये र्ये ह , िबकि उक्त पत्र में
साक्षात्िार िे किए किधागररत 30 अंि (साक्षात्िार में एि कतहाई
अंि प्राप् होिे पर चयि िहीं किया िायेर्ा) िो आधार मािते हुए
प्रवक्ता इिेक्राकिक्स में 09 अभ्यकथगयों िो साक्षात्िार में एि कतहाई
से िम अंि देिर उििा चयि िहीं किया र्या, तथा अभ्यकथगयों िो
अिुभव िा िोई अंि प्रदाि ि िर चयि में अकियकमतता बरती र्ई
ह , उक्त िायगवाही त्रुकटपूणग ह ।

6. प्रवक्त कवद्युत िे पद हेतु किदेशि प्राकवकधि
कशक्षा, उत्तर प्रदेश िे पत्र सं० 29258/ई-35-एक्स-56(एस)
कदिांि 24.07.1993 द्वारा प्रवक्ता कवद्युत हेतु प्राकवकधि कशक्षा
अकधकियम-1962 िे कियम-22 एफ िे क्रम में प्रेकषत सूची में
तीि िामों िा किम्िांकित प िि संस्था िो प्रेकषत किया र्याैः-

1. िा० कवश्विाथ कसन्हा, प्रो० इिेक्राकिक्स इंिी०,
आई०ई०टी० िििऊ।

2.
कवभार्ाध्यक्ष,
कवद्युत
इंिी०,
रूििी
कवश्वकवद्यािय, रूड़िी।

3. िा० एि०पी० कसंह, प्रो० ररटायिग कवद्युत इंिी०
कवभार्, आई०ई०टी० कवभार्, टाइप- पांच आई०आई०टी०
िििऊ।

प्रबन्ध सकमकत द्वारा कवशेषज्ञ सदस्य हेतु किसी 01
िाम िा चयि प्राकवकधि कशक्षा अकधकियम-1962 (यथा
संशोकधत-1974) िे प्रस्तर-22 एप (3) िे अिुसार किया िािा
चाकहए था, परन्तु प्रधािाचायग द्वारा कदिांि 21.01.1994 िो
चयि सकमकत िी ब ठि में उपयुगक्त तीिों कवशेषज्ञों िे स्ताि पर श्री
िे०िे० कत्रपाठी हेि आफ किपाटगमेंट इिेक्राकिक्स इंिी०,
एच०बी०टी०आई०, िािपुर िो कवशेषज्ञ/सदस्य कियुक्त किये िािे
िे िारण उक्त चयि कवकधि रूप से अमान्य ह । क्यों कि प्रवक्ता
कवद्युत पद हेतु र्कठत कवशेषज्ञ प िि से कवषय कवशेषज्ञ ि िेिर
इिेक्राकिक्स कवषय हेतु र्कठत प िि से कवशेषज्ञ श्री िे० िे०
कत्रपाठी से साक्षात्िार िराया िािा कियम कवरूद्ध ह ।

अतएव उपरोक्त िकमयों/त्रुकटयों िे िारण प्रधािाचायग,
एम०िी० पािीटेकक्िि हाथरस िे पत्रांि 16 ई०एस०(ए)/481
कदिांि 15.02.1994 द्वारा प्रेकषत चयि सकमकत िी संस्तुकत िे
आधार पर प्रवक्ता इिेक्राकिक्स पद हेतु चयकित अभ्यथी श्री अकमत
कमश्रा एंव श्री िुवेिर पाि कसंह तथा प्रवक्ता कवद्युत पद हेतु चयकित
श्री अिुरार् कसंह एंव श्री रामियि किषाद (अिुसूकचत िाकत) िे
चयि िा अिुमोदि प्रदाि किया िािा सम्भव िहीं ह ।

अतैः मा० उच्च न्यायािय द्वारा पाररत आदेश
कदिांि 23.08.2016 िे अिुपािि में परीक्षणोंपरान्त चयि िा
अिुमोदि प्रदाि ि िरते हुए, चयि िी िायगवाही िो किरस्त किया
िाता ह ।

(िफीि अहमद)

किदेशि

प्राकवकधि कशक्षा, उत्तर प्रदेश।

Letter of Director of Technical Education
order dated 17.05.1989

प्रेषि,

किदेशि,

प्राकवकधि कशक्षा,

िािपुर।

सेवा में,

समस्त प्रधािाचायग

सहायता प्राप् बहुधन्धी संस्थाि,

उत्तर प्रदेश।

संख्याैः- 17-35 एिी ि म्प/ई-35-एक्स-कवकवध िािपुरैः
कदिांि 17 मई 1989

कवषयैः- सहायता प्राप् पोिीटेिकििों में चयि सकमकतयों िे
अन्तर्गत पदों पर सीधी भती से कियुकक्त हेतु र्कठत चयि सकमकतयों िे
किए श कक्षि योग्यता अिुभव तथा साक्षात्िार िे किए अंिों िे
मापदण्ि िा किधागरण।

महोदय,