# Mohit Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 150
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-10
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 3597 of 2020
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohit-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46903
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

A. Service law-Post of Cane SupervisorQualification-CCC certificate issued by
DOEACC Society - Nature - Course on
Computer Concepts (CCC) is designed to
fulfill the beginner level computer literacy
and that can be undertaken by a person at
his own also - Its objective is to enable a
student
to
acquire
the
knowledge
pertaining to fundamental of information
technology - Held, qualification of CCC as
an expertise in the computer application
3 All. Mohit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
151
which, as matter of fact, is nothing but a
most preliminary knowledge in the field
concerned
-
It
can
be
said
that
requirement of the employer was to have
the persons at least with minimum
knowledge of computer concepts. (Para
24, 25 and 36)

B. Service law - Post of Cane Supervisor -
Qualification - Possession of equivalent
qualification in place of CCC certificate
issued by DOEACC Society - Consideration -
Intention of the legislature/employer in
providing requirement of 'CCC' Certificate is
to recruit the candidates suitable to work
efficiently
in
the
changing
work
environment of Government Offices which
aims to make government services available
to citizens electronically - It also aims to
empower the country digitally in the domain
of technology - Held, Candidates who can
provide conclusive evidence that they have
education or experience at least equal to
what
is
required
by
the
minimum
qualifications deserve careful consideration.
(Para 36 and 37)

C. Interpretation of Statute - Statute -
Declaratory
or
clarificatory
or
explanatory in nature - OperationRetrospective
Effect-Ordinarily
a
subordinate legislation cannot be given
retrospective
effect
but
a
clarification/notification can be given
retrospective effect - A declaratory,
clarificatory
or
explanatory
Act
is
generally passed to supply an obvious
omission or to clear up doubts as to the
meaning of the previous Act - Held,
Government Order dated 05.07.2018 is
clarificatory in nature and, therefore, it
can be given retrospective effect. (Para
32 and 33)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 53,756. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
request, for it or not. For this it is
necessary to issue a notice to the employee
concerned intimating him date, time and
place of the enquiry as held by the Division
Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra
Sharma v. Managing Director, (2000) 1
UPLBEC 541, against which SLP has been
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16-82000." (emphasis added)

(C) In State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha6, the Supreme Court said:

"An inquiry officer acting in a quasijudicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to
be a representative of the department/
disciplinary
authority/
Government.
His
function is to examine the evidence presented
by the Department, even in the absence of the
delinquent official to see as to whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the
charges are proved. In the present case the
aforesaid procedure has not been observed.
Since no oral evidence has been examined the
documents have not been proved, and could not
have been taken into consideration to conclude
that the charges have been proved against the
respondents.

When a departmental enquiry is
conducted against the government servant it
cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The
enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted
with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to
be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice
are required to be observed to ensure not only
that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be
done. The object of rules of natural justice is to
ensure that a government servant is treated
fairly in proceedings which may culminate in
imposition
of
punishment
including
dismissal/removal from service."

12. From the above facts, it is found
that the enquiry held against the petitioner is
not held as per the procedure established by
law. Thus the punishment order passed
against the petitioner on the basis of such an
defective and illegal enquiry cannot stand.

13. Given the aforesaid, the writ
petition is allowed. Both the order of
dismissal dated 04.08.1995 as well as the
order
dated
30.12.2011
rejecting
the
representation of the petitioner are set aside.
Petitioner would be entitled to all benefits of
service as are granted to other two delinquent
employees i.e. Sri V.K. Saxena, Junior
Aircraft Mechanic and Sri Harish Chandra @
Munna, Cleaner.
----------
(2021)03ILR A150
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Service Single No. 3597 of 2020
and
Service Single No. 11886 of 2020

Mohit Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Badrish Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra, Jogendra Nath
Verma

A. Service law-Post of Cane SupervisorQualification-CCC certificate issued by
DOEACC Society - Nature - Course on
Computer Concepts (CCC) is designed to
fulfill the beginner level computer literacy
and that can be undertaken by a person at
his own also - Its objective is to enable a
student
to
acquire
the
knowledge
pertaining to fundamental of information
technology - Held, qualification of CCC as
an expertise in the computer application
3 All. Mohit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
151
which, as matter of fact, is nothing but a
most preliminary knowledge in the field
concerned
-
It
can
be
said
that
requirement of the employer was to have
the persons at least with minimum
knowledge of computer concepts. (Para
24, 25 and 36)

B. Service law - Post of Cane Supervisor -
Qualification - Possession of equivalent
qualification in place of CCC certificate
issued by DOEACC Society - Consideration -
Intention of the legislature/employer in
providing requirement of 'CCC' Certificate is
to recruit the candidates suitable to work
efficiently
in
the
changing
work
environment of Government Offices which
aims to make government services available
to citizens electronically - It also aims to
empower the country digitally in the domain
of technology - Held, Candidates who can
provide conclusive evidence that they have
education or experience at least equal to
what
is
required
by
the
minimum
qualifications deserve careful consideration.
(Para 36 and 37)

C. Interpretation of Statute - Statute -
Declaratory
or
clarificatory
or
explanatory in nature - OperationRetrospective
Effect-Ordinarily
a
subordinate legislation cannot be given
retrospective
effect
but
a
clarification/notification can be given
retrospective effect - A declaratory,
clarificatory
or
explanatory
Act
is
generally passed to supply an obvious
omission or to clear up doubts as to the
meaning of the previous Act - Held,
Government Order dated 05.07.2018 is
clarificatory in nature and, therefore, it
can be given retrospective effect. (Para
32 and 33)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Vatika
Township Pvt. Ltd.; (2015) 1 SCC 1

2. S.B.I. Vs Ramkrishnan & anr.; (2018) 17 SCC 394
3. Zile Singh Vs St. of Har. & ors.; (2004) 8 SCC
1

4. Parvaiz Ahmad Parry Vs St. of J.& K. & ors.;
(2015) 17 SCC 709

5. S.B. Bhattacharjee Vs S.D. Majumdar & ors.;
(2007) 10 SCC 513

6. Ashok Lanka Vs Rishi Dikshit & ors.; (2006) 9
SCC 90

7. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd.;
(2009) 12 SCC 209

8. Channan Singh Vs Jai Kaur (Smt.); (1969) 2
SCC 429

9. Punjab Traders Vs St. of Punj.; (1991) 1 SCC
86

10. Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs The St. of U.P. &
ors.; (2020) 4 SCC 86

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

1. Petitioners of both the writ petitions
have approached this Court challenging the
order dated 15.01.2020 by which the
Commissioner,
Sugarcane
and
Sugar,
Lucknow (opposite party no.3) has clarified
that the candidates who possess equivalent
qualification to 'CCC' Certificate issued by
DOEACC Society are not entitled to
participate in the interview held for the post
of Cane Supervisor in pursuance to the
advertisement No.20-Examination/2016.

2. Vide order dated 12.02.2020 passed
in Writ Petition No.3597 (SS) of 2020, the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed
that if the final result is declared during
pendency of the writ petition, the same shall
be subject to final outcome of this writ
petition.

3. Submission of learned Counsel for
the petitioners is that an advertisement was
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued on 05.10.2016 by U.P. Subordinate
Service Selection Commission inviting
online applications for various posts
including the post of Cane Supervisor. The
essential qualification for the post of Cane
Supervisor is graduation in Agricultural
Science or any equivalent qualification
along with 'CCC' Certificate issued by
DOEACC Society.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that earlier the State
Government vide order dated 3/6.05.2016
and order dated 23.09.2016 had issued
clarification with regard to the recognition
of equivalent qualifications with 'CCC'
Certificate for appointment on the post of
Junior Assistant and the Stenographer and
thereafter vide order dated 05.07.2018, it
was clarified that the persons who possess
Diploma
in
Computer,
Degree
in
Computer, PGDCA, BCA, MCA and
Graduation with B.A., B.Sc, B.Tech. ,
M.Sc., M.B.A., wherein Computer is one of
the subjects or where computer is a course
in one semester of the courses shall be
deemed to be equivalent qualification to
''CCC' Certificate and shall be eligible for
selection on the post of Junior Assistant,
Stenographer and all other posts of public
service of State Government.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
has further submitted that the petitioner
no.1, 6, 8 and 9 have possessed the
qualification of B.Sc. Agricultural Science
with Computer subject in VIIIth Semester,
petitioners
no.2
has
possessed
the
qualification
of
B.Tech.
Agricultural
Science with Computer subject in Ist and
Vth Semesters, petitioners no.3 and 4 have
possessed
the
qualification
of
B.Sc.
Agricultural
Science
with
Computer
subject in VIIIth and VIIth semesters. The
petitioner
no.5
has
possessed
the
qualification
of
B.Tech.
Agricultural
Science with Computer Subject in IInd and
Vth Semesters and petitioner no.7 and 10
have also possessed the qualifications of
B.Sc. Horticulture with Computer Subject
in VIIIth Semester whereas the petitioner of
connected Writ Petition No.11886 (SS) of
2020 is B.Sc. Agricultural Science and
having post graduate one year diploma in
computer applications.

6. It has again been submitted by
learned Counsel for the petitioners that all
the petitioners being eligible candidates
have submitted online applications for the
post
of
Cane
Supervisor
and
after
qualifying in written examination, they
were called for interview in the office of
U.P.
Subordinate
Service
Selection
Commission, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow but
they were refused to participate in the
interview on the ground that they do not
have
requisite
qualification.
Being
aggrieved, the petitioners filed a Writ
Petition No.1970 (SS) of 2020, which was
disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2020
with direction to submit representation
before the competent authorities and the
same shall be decided in accordance with
law. Thereafter, a review application
against the order dated 22.01.2020 was
filed by the petitioner, which was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2020.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
has contended that the opposite party no.3
being
subordinate
legislature
is
not
competent to clarify or elaborate the
Government Orders dated 3/6.05.2016,
23.09.2016 and 05.07.2018 issued by the
opposite party no.2 and, therefore, the
impugned order dated 15.01.2020 is illegal,
arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the
same is liable to be quashed. He has further
contended that the candidate with higher
3 All. Mohit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
153
qualification is deemed to fulfill the lower
qualification prescribed for a post provided
that such higher qualification must be in the
same channel with the lower qualification.
In the instant case, the advertisement was
issued on 05.10.2016 for the post of Cane
Supervisor
for
which
the
requisite
qualification is 'CCC' Certificate from
DOEACC Society but vide Government
Order
dated
05.07.2018,
the
State
Government had clarified/ explained the
earlier
Government
Orders
dated
3/6.05.2016 and 23.05.2016 by which the
petitioners are eligible to participate in the
interview but opposite parties have not
permitted them to participate in the
interview
though
the
petitioners
participated in the written examination and
qualified the same.

8. It has again been contended by
learned Counsel for the petitioners that the
Government Orders issued by the State are
in the nature of clarification and, therefore,
a clarificatory/ explanatory amendments
will have retrospective effect. Hence, the
respondents have committed an error while
denying the claim of the petitioners to
participate in the interview. In support of
his submissions, learned Counsel for the
petitioners has placed reliance to para 32 of
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika
Township Pvt. Ltd.; (2015) 1 SCC 1, which
reads as under:

"32.
Let
us
sharpen
the
discussion a little more. We may note that
under certain circumstances, a particular
amendment can be treated as clarificatory
or declaratory in nature. Such statutory
provisions are labelled as "declaratory
statutes". The circumstances under which
provisions can be termed as "declaratory
statutes" are explained by Justice G.P.
Singh
[Principles
of
Statutory
Interpretation, (13th Edn., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2012)] in
the following manner:

"Declaratory statutes

The
presumption
against
retrospective operation is not applicable to
declaratory statutes. As stated in Craies [
W.F. Craies, Craies on Statute Law (7th
Edn., Sweet and Maxwell Ltd., 1971)] and
approved by the Supreme Court [Ed.: The
reference is to Central Bank of India v.
Workmen, AIR 1960 SC 12, para 29] : ''For
modern purposes a declaratory Act may be
defined as an Act to remove doubts existing
as to the common law, or the meaning or
effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually
held to be retrospective. The usual reason
for passing a declaratory Act is to set aside
what Parliament deems to have been a
judicial error, whether in the statement of
the common law or in the interpretation of
statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an
Act contains a Preamble, and also the word
"declared" as well as the word "enacted".'
But the use of the words ''it is declared' is
not conclusive that the Act is declaratory
for these words may, at times, be used to
introduced new rules of law and the Act in
the latter case will only be amending the
law
and
will
not
necessarily
be
retrospective. In determining, therefore, the
nature of the Act, regard must be had to the
substance rather than to the form. If a new
Act is ''to explain' an earlier Act, it would
be
without
object
unless
construed
retrospective.
An
explanatory
Act
is
generally passed to supply an obvious
omission or to clear up doubts as to the
meaning of the previous Act. It is well
settled that if a statute is curative or merely
declaratory
of
the
previous
law
retrospective
operation
is
generally
intended. The language ''shall be deemed
always to have meant' is declaratory, and is
in plain terms retrospective. In the absence
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of clear words indicating that the amending
Act is declaratory, it would not be so
construed when the pre-amended provision
was clear and unambiguous. An amending
Act may be purely clarificatory to clear a
meaning of a provision of the principal Act
which was already implicit. A clarificatory
amendment of this nature will have
retrospective effect and, therefore, if the
principal Act was existing law which the
Constitution came into force, the amending
Act also will be part of the existing law."

The
above
summing
up
is
factually based on the judgments of this
Court as well as English decisions."

9. Learned Counsel has also invited
attention to para 33 of the State Bank of
India Vs. Ramkrishnan and another;
(2018) 17 SCC 394. Para 33 quoted below:

"33. The Report of the said
Committee makes it clear that the object of
the amendment was to clarify and set at rest
what the Committee thought was an
overbroad interpretation of Section 14. That
such clarificatory amendment is retrospective
in nature, would be clear from the following
judgments:

33.1.CIT v. Shelly Products [CIT v.
Shelly Products, (2003) 5 SCC 461] : (SCC
p. 478, para 38)

"38. It was submitted that after 1-41989, in case the assessment is annulled the
assessee is entitled to refund only of the
amount, if any, of the tax paid in excess of the
tax chargeable on the total income returned
by the assessee. But before the amendment
came into effect the position in law was quite
different and that is why the legislature
thought it proper to amend the section and
insert the proviso. On the other hand the
learned counsel for the Revenue submitted
that the proviso is merely declaratory and
does not change the legal position as it
existed before the amendment. It was
submitted that this Court in CIT v. Chittor
Electric Supply Corpn. [CIT v. Chittor
Electric Supply Corpn., (1995) 2 SCC 430]
has held that proviso (a) to Section 240 is
declaratory and, therefore, proviso (b) should
also be held to be declaratory. In our view
that is not the correct position in law. Where
the proviso consists of two parts, one part
may be declaratory but the other part may
not be so. Therefore, merely because one part
of the proviso has been held to be declaratory
it does not follow that the second part of the
proviso is also declaratory. However, the
view that we have taken supports the stand of
the Revenue that proviso (b) to Section 240 is
also declaratory. We have held that even
under the unamended Section 240 of the Act,
the assessee was only entitled to the refund of
tax paid in excess of the tax chargeable on
the total income returned by the assessee. We
have held so without taking the aid of the
amended provision. It, therefore, follows that
proviso (b) to Section 240 is also declaratory.
It seeks to clarify the law so as to remove
doubts leading to the courts giving conflicting
decisions, and in several cases directing the
Revenue to refund the entire amount of
income tax paid by the assessee where the
Revenue was not in a position to frame a
fresh assessment. Being clarificatory in
nature it must be held to be retrospective, in
the facts and circumstances of the case. It is
well settled that the legislature may pass a
declaratory Act to set aside what the
legislature deems to have been a judicial
error in the interpretation of statute. It only
seeks to clear the meaning of a provision of
the principal Act and make explicit that
which was already implicit."

...

..."

10. Again learned Counsel has placed
reliance to para 14 of Zile Singh Vs. State
3 All. Mohit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
155
of Hariyana and others; (2004) 8 SCC 1.
Para 14 is extracted below:

"14. The presumption against
retrospective operation is not applicable to
declaratory statutes.... In determining,
therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must
be had to the substance rather than to the
form. If a new Act is "to explain" an earlier
Act, it would be without object unless
construed retrospectively. An explanatory
Act is generally passed to supply an
obvious omission or to clear up doubts as
to the meaning of the previous Act. It is
well settled that if a statute is curative or
merely declaratory of the previous law
retrospective
operation
is
generally
intended.... An amending Act may be purely
declaratory to clear a meaning of a
provision of the principal Act which was
already implicit. A clarificatory amendment
of this nature will have retrospective effect
(ibid., pp. 468-69)."

11.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners has next contended that in
similar circumstances petitioners having
one subject of computer in Writ-A
No.10518 of 2018 and Writ-A No.11412 of
2018, which were disposed of vide orders
dated
04.07.2018
and
08.05.2018
repetitively,
were
allowed
by
the
respondents to participate in the interview
but the petitioners of instant writ petitions
have been denied. Such action of the
respondent authority is arbitrary and illegal
and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

12. Per contra, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State has
submitted that the selection/ appointment
for the post of Cane Supervisor, only 'CCC'
Certificate issued by the DOEACC Society
is mandatory and compulsory requirement.
The other certificate issued by other agency
equivalent to the 'CCC' Certificate is not
acceptable. The
petitioners
have
not
possessed 'CCC' Certificate issued by the
DOEACC Society and, therefore, they
could not be allowed to participate in the
interview of the cane supervisor.

13. Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State has further submitted
that the orders dated 08.05.2018 and
04.07.2018 passed in Writ-A No.11412 of
2018 and Writ-A No.10518 of 2018
respectively relates to an Advertisement
No.03-Examination/
2016
of
Village
Development
Officer
whereas
the
petitioners are applied for Cane Supervisor,
therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the
benefits of the said orders. At the time of
sending requisition, the Government Order
dated 06.05.2016 was in force which was
issued for the selection of the Junior
Assistant and Stenographer whereas the
present matter relates to the selection of the
Cane Supervisors and, therefore, the same
is not applicable in the case of the
petitioners.

14. It has next been submitted learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State
that Rule 9 of the U.P. Cane Supervisor
(Category-III)
Service
(Second
Amendment) Rules, 2015 provides that for
the post of Cane Supervisor, only 'CCC'
Certificate issued by DOEACC Society is
mandatory and, therefore, the authority has
rightly denied the petitioners to participate
in the interview as the petitioners have not
possessed 'CCC' Certificate issued by
DOEACC Society. The State Government
has issued the Government Order dated
05.07.2018 in respect of selection of the
Junior Assistant and Stenographer in which
the guidelines have been provided with
regards to equivalency of 'CCC' Certificate
issued by DOEACC Society with other
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certificates and courses whereas in the
instant case, no such guidelines have been
issued. Hence, the impugned order dated
15.01.2020 has rightly been passed by the
Commissioner, Sugar Cane and Sugar,
Lucknow. The writ petition is devoid by
merit and is liable to be dismissed.

15. I have considered the submissions
of learned Counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

16. Before coming to the merits of the
case, it would be appropriate to bring in
box
some
of
necessary
facts
in
chronological order.

17. On 05.10.2016, an advertisement
was issued by U.P. Subordinate Service
Selection Commission for filling up the
post of 437 Cane Supervisor. For the post
of Cane Supervisor, the candidates were
required to possess the qualification of
graduation in Agricultural Science or any
equivalent qualification along with 'CCC'
Certificate issued by DOEACC Society.
For ready reference, paras 8 and 9 of the
advertisement is extracted below:

"8. vfuok;Z vgZrk 1⁄4'kSf{kd1⁄2 %&

mi;ZqDr lkj.kh&1 esa mfYyf[kr xUuk
i;Zos{kd in ij HkrhZ gsrq fofgr vfuok;Z 'kSf{kd

vgZrk fuEufyf[kr lkj.kh&3 esa nh x;h
gS] vkosnu dh vafre frfFk rd bPNqd vH;FkhZ tks

mDr vfuok;Z vgZrk /kkfjr djrs gks] os
vkWuykbu vkosnu dj ldrs gS%&

lkj.kh&3

in dzekad in uke vfuok;Z
vgZrk@vf/kekuh vgZrk

1&xUuk i;Zos{kd 1- Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk
LFkkfir fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls d`f"k foKku esa

Lukrd mikf/k vFkok ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr
mlds led{k dksbZ vgZrkA

2&dEI;wVj
lapkyu
esa
Mh0vks0bZ0,0lh0lh0 1⁄4Mks,d1⁄2 lkslkbVh }kjk iznku
fd;k x;k
Þlh0lh0lh0ß izek.ki=

9. vf/kekuh vgZrk %& mi;qZDRk inksa ds
fy, vU; ckrksa ds leku gksus ij ,sls vH;FkhZ dks

vf/keku fn;k tk,xk

1& izknsf'kd lsuk esa U;wure nks o"kZ dh
vof/k rd dh lsok dh gks] ;k

2& jk"Vah; dSMsV dksj dk ^ch^ izek.k&i=
izkIRk fd;k gksA"

18.

Before
issuance
of
the
advertisement, vide Government Order
dated 3/6.05.2016, the State Government
had
recognised
the
qualifications
equivalent to 'CCC' Certificate for the post
of Junior Assistant and Stenographer. The
Government Order dated 3/6.05.2016 reads
as under:

" isz"kd]

fd'ku flag vVksfj;k]

izeq[k lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

leLr izeq[k lfpo@lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

dkfeZd vuqHkkx&2 y[kuÅ] fnukad 06 ebZ]
2016

fo"k;
%&
Mh-vks-bZ-,-lh-lh-
1⁄4Mks,d1⁄2
lkslkbVh }kjk iznRr lh-lh-lh- izek.k&i= dh
led{krk
fu/kkZfjr djus ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

dfu"B lgk;d ,oa vk'kqfyfid ds inksa
ij p;u gsrq Mh-vks-bZ-,-lh-lh- 1⁄4Mks,d1⁄2

lkslkbVh }kjk }kjk iznRr lh-lh-lh- izek.k&i=
dh led{krk ds lEcU/k esa 'kklu }kjk

fuEuor~ fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS %&

1⁄411⁄2 ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj izns'k ds
lkFk&lkFk dsUnz vFkok fdlh jkT; ljdkj }kjk

LFkkfir fdlh laLFkk@f'k{kk cksMZ@ifj"kn
}kjk lapkfyr gkbZLdwy vFkok b.VjehfM,V

ijh{kk esa i`Fkd fo"k; ds #i esa dEI;wVj lkbUl
fo"k; dks fy;k x;k gksA

1⁄421⁄2 ;fn fdlh vH;FkhZ }kjk dEI;wVj
lkbUl esa fMIyksek vFkok fMxzh izkIr dh xbZ gks rks

og Hkh dfu"B lgk;d@vk'kqfyfid ds
inksa ij HkrhZ gsrq ik= gksxkA

2& bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk
funs'k gqvk gS fd dfu"B lgk;d ,oa vk'kqfyfid ds

inksa ij p;u gsrq mi;ZqDrkuqlkj dk;Zokgh
lqfuf'pr djkus dk d"V djsaA ekU;rk izkIr
3 All. Mohit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
157

f'k{kk cksMksZ@ifj"knksa dh lwph layXu gS] lkFk gh
,slh laLFkk,] tks ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn]
m0iz0
bykgkckn }kjk ekU; ugha gS] dh lwph Hkh layXu gSA

layXud& ;FkksDrA

Hkonh;]

g0 viBuh;

1⁄4fd'ku flag vVksfj;k1⁄2

izeq[k lfpoA"

19. Again on 23.09.2016, the State
Government
had
issued
another
Government Order for the purpose of
recognising the equivalency of 'CCC'
Certificate
and
modified
the
earlier
Government Order dated 3/6.05.2016 to the
extent of that clause (1) of the Government
Order dated 3/6.05.2016 shall be applicable
for all the public services/ posts of the State
Government
which
require
'CCC'
Certificate issued by DOEACC Society
(Now
known
as
'NIELIT').
The
Government Order dated 23.09.2016 is
quoted below:

" isz"kd]

fd'ku flag vVksfj;k]

izeq[k lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

leLr izeq[k lfpo@lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

dkfeZd vuqHkkx&2 y[kuÅ] fnukad 23
flrEcj] 2016

fo"k;
%&
Mh-vks-bZ-,-lh-lh-
1⁄4Mks;d1⁄2
lkslkbVh }kjk iznRr lh-lh-lh- izek.k&i= dh
led{krk
fu/kkZfjr djus ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

mi;ZqDr fo"k;d lela[;d 'kklukns'k
fnukad 03@06 ebZ] 2016 dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k

djsa] ftlds ek/;e ls dfu"B lgk;d ,oa
vk'kqfyfid ds inksa ij p;u gsrq Mh-vks-bZ-,-lh-

lh- 1⁄4Mks;d1⁄2 lkslkbVh }kjk iznRr lh-lh-lh-
izek.k&i= dh led{krk ds lEcU/k esa

'kklu
}kjk fuEuor~ fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk %&

1⁄411⁄2 ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj izns'k ds
lkFk&lkFk dsUnz vFkok fdlh jkT; ljdkj }kjk

LFkkfir fdlh laLFkk@f'k{kk cksMZ@ifj"kn
}kjk lapkfyr gkbZLdwy vFkok b.VjehfM,V

ijh{kk esa i`Fkd fo"k; ds #i esa dEI;wVj lkbUl
fo"k; dks fy;k x;k gksA

1⁄421⁄2 ;fn fdlh vH;FkhZ }kjk dEI;wVj
lkbUl esa fMIyksek vFkok fMxzh izkIr dh xbZ gks rks

og Hkh dfu"B lgk;d@vk'kqfyfid ds
inksa ij HkrhZ gsrq ik= gksxkA

2& bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk
funs'k gqvk gS fd ,slh leLr jkT;k/khu yksd lsokvksa

vkSj inksa] ftu ij] Mh-vks-bZ-,-lh-lh-
1⁄4Mks;d1⁄2 lkslkbVh 1⁄4ifjofrZr uke NIELIT -

National Institute of Electronics and
Information Technology) }kjk iznRr

lh-lh-lh- izek.k&i= visf{kr gS] ds lanHkZ esa Hkh
mi;qZDr izLrj&1 esa mfYYkf[kr O;oLFkk
izHkkoh
gksxhA rRdze esa ekU;rk izkIRk f'k{kk cksMksZ@ifj"knksa dh
lwph iqu% layXu dh tk jgh
gS] lkFk gh ,slh
laLFkk,¡] tks ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] m0iz0] bykgkckn
}kjk EkkU; ugha gS]

dh lwph Hkh layXu dh
tk jgh gSA

\layXud& ;FkksDrA

Hkonh;]

g0 viBuh;

1⁄4fd'ku flag vVksfj;k1⁄2

izeq[k lfpoA"

20. It is relevant to note that after
issuance of the Advertisement No.20 -
Examination/ 2016, the State Government
again
on
05.07.2018
issued
another
Government Order and modified/ clarified
the earlier Government Orders dated
3/6.05.2016 and 23.09.2016 to the extent
that
those
persons
who
are
having
qualifications in computer i.e. Diploma in
Computer, Degree in Computer, PGDCA,
BCA, MCA and Graduation (B.A., B.Sc.,
B.Tech., M.Sc., M.B.A.) wherein Computer
is one of the subjects or where the
computer is course in one semester of the
courses shall be deemed to possess
equivalent
qualifications
to
''CCC'
Certificate and shall be eligible for
selection. The Government Order dated
05.07.2018 is quoted below for ready
reference:
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Þizs"kd]

eqdqy flagy

vij eq[; lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

leLr
vij
eq[;
lfpo@izeq[k
lfpo@lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

dkfedZ vuqHkkx&2 y[kuÅ] fnukad 05 tqykbZ]
2018

fo"k;%& Mh0vks0bZ0,0lh0lh01⁄4Mks;d1⁄2 lkslkbVh
}kjk iznRr lh0lh0lh0 izek.k i= dh led{krk ds

lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

dfu"B lgk;d] vk'kqfyfid ,oa ,slh
leLr jkT;k/khu yksd lsokvksa vkSj inks] ftu ij

(Electronics
and
information
Technology) }kjk iznRr lh0lh0lh izek.k i=

visf{kr gS] dh led{krk ds lEcU/k esa
lela[;d 'kklukns'k fnukad 03@06 ebZ 2016 ,oa

23 flrEcj] 2016 fuxZr fd;s x;s gSA

2- led{krk ds lEcU/k esa gks jgh
O;kogkfjd dfBukbZ;ksa ds n`f"Vxr lh0lh0lh izek.k

i= ,oa mldh led{k vgZrk dks vkSj
Li"V djus gsrq lE;d fopkjksijkUr 'kklu }kjk ;g

fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd dEI;wVj esa mPp
;ksX;rk /kkjh ;Fkk dEI;wVj esa fMIyksek] fMxzh] ih-

th-Mh-lh-,-]
ch0lh0,0]
,e0lh0,0
rFkk
xzstq,s'ku vFkok mPp fMxzh 1⁄4ch0,0] ch0,l0lh0]

chVsd] ,e-,l-lh- ,e0ch0,1⁄2 esa dEI;wVj
,d fo"k; ds :i vFkok ,d lsesLVj esa dEI;wVj

dkslZ /kkfjr djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Hkh
iz'uxr inksa ds p;u gsrq vgZ ekuk tk;sxkA

3- bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k
gqvk gS fd 'kklu }kjk fy, x, mDr fu.kZ; dk

vuqiky lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A

Hkonh;

eqdqy flagy

vij eq[; lfpoAß

21. Petitioners of the present writ
petitions have applied for the post of Cane
Supervisor. They appeared in written
examination
and
after
declaring
successful, they were directed to appear in
interview but they have been denied to
appear before the Interview Board on the
ground that they have not possessed the
requisite qualification as required by the
advertisement.

22. A deep consideration of the facts
and circumstances of the case and the
discussions including the submissions
advanced by learned Counsel for the
parties, the crux of the matter is whether
the petitioners are entitled for the
retrospective benefit of equivalence of
'CCC' Certificate as provided in the
Government
Order
dated
05.07.2018
issued for all the public services/ posts of
the
State
Government
read
with
Government Orders dated 3/6.05.2016 and
23.09.2016 issued for the posts of Junior
Assistant and Stenographer?

23. While keeping in mind the fact
stated above, I deem it appropriate to
understand nature of 'CCC' conducted by
DOEACC. As per the details available
available on the official website of the
NIELIT, the details of the Course on
Computer Concepts (CCC) is as follows:

"Introduction: This course is
designed to aim at imparting a basic level
IT Literacy programme for the common
man. This programme has essentially been
conceived with an idea of giving an
opportunity to the common man to attain
computer literacy thereby contributing to
increased and speedy PC penetration in
different walks of life. After completing the
course the incumbent should be able to the
use the computer for basic purposes of
preparing his personnel/business letters,
viewing information on internet (the web),
receiving and sending mails, preparing his
business presentations, preparing small
databases etc. This helps the small business
communities, housewives, etc. to maintain
their small accounts using the computers
3 All. Mohit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
159
and enjoy in the world of Information
Technology. This course is, therefore,
designed to be more practical oriented.

Eligibility: The candidates can
appear in the NIELIT CCC Examination
through following three modes and the
eligibility criteria for each mode are
indicated against each:

2.1
Candidates
sponsored
by
NIELIT approved Institutes permitted to
conduct CCC Course - irrespective of any
educational qualifications;

2.2
Candidates
sponsored
by
Government recognized Schools/ Colleges
having obtained an Unique Identity number
from
NIELIT
for
conducting CCC
-
irrespective
of
any
educational
qualifications; and

2.3 Direct Applicants (without
essentially undergoing the Accredited Course
or without being sponsored by a Govt.
recognised School/ College) - irrespective of
any educational qualification;

Duration: The total duration of the
course is 80 hours, consisting of

i) Theory
25
hours

ii) Tutorials

5

hours

iii) Practicals
50

hours

The course could ideally be a two
weeks intensive course."

24. The introduction quoted above
indicates that the Course on Computer
Concepts (CCC) is designed to fulfill the
beginner level computer literacy and that can
be undertaken by a person at his own also.
The only requirement is that he must get the
same verified by NIELIT (formerly known as
"DOEACC Society").

25. The qualification of CCC as an
expertise in the computer application
which, as matter of fact, is nothing but a
most preliminary knowledge in the field
concerned. In other words, it can be said
that requirement of the employer was to
have the persons at least with minimum
knowledge of computer concepts and the
person applying must be computer literate.
In present days, computer literacy is just
equivalent to letter literacy in earlier days.

26. In the case of Parvaiz Ahmad
Parry vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and
others; (2015) 17 SCC 709, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paras 13, 14 and 15 held
as under:

"13. As would be clear from the
undisputed facts mentioned above, the
minimum
qualification
prescribed
for
applying to the post of Jammu and Kashmir
Forest Service Range Officers Grade I was
"BSc (Forestry) or equivalent from any
university recognised by ICAR". It is not
disputed that the appellant had to his credit
a qualification of BSc with Forestry as one
of the major subjects and Masters in
Forestry i.e. MSc (Forestry), on the date
when he applied for the post in question,
which satisfied the eligibility criteria so far
as the qualification was concerned.

14. We do not agree with the
reasoning of the High Court that in order to
be an eligible candidate, the appellant
should have done BSc in Forestry and since
he had not done so, he was not considered
as an eligible candidate. This reasoning, in
our view, does not stand to any logic and is,
therefore, not acceptable insofar as the
facts of this case are concerned.

15. In our considered view, firstly,
if there was any ambiguity or vagueness
noticed in prescribing the qualification in
the advertisement, then it should have been
clarified by the authority concerned in the
advertisement itself. Secondly, if it was not
clarified, then benefit should have been
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given to the candidate rather than to the
respondents. Thirdly, even assuming that
there was no ambiguity or/and any
vagueness yet we find that the appellant
was admittedly having BSc degree with
Forestry as one of the major subjects in his
graduation and further he was also having
Master's degree in Forestry i.e. MSc
(Forestry). In the light of these facts, we are
of the view that the appellant was
possessed of the prescribed qualification to
apply for the post in question and his
application could not have been rejected
treating him to be an ineligible candidate
for
not
possessing
prescribed
qualification."

27. In the present case, the petitioners
have been denied to participate in the
interview only on the ground that even the
petitioners
have
possessed
equivalent
qualification of 'CCC' Certificate, they are not
entitled to participate in the interview as they
did not have possessed 'CCC' Certificate
issued by DOEACC Society. During the
course of the argument, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State has
vehemently contended that the clarificatory
Government Order dated 05.07.2018 will not
have retrospective effect in the case of
petitioners as the same was not issued for the
post of Cane Supervisor.

28.

In
the
case
of
S.B.
Bhattacharjee vs S.D. Majumdar and
others; (2007) 10 SCC 513, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that calrificatory
or explanatory order have retrospective
effect. In paras 32, 33, 35 and 36 of the
said judgment reads as under:

"32. The clarification issued by
the State is not in the teeth of the
illustration given in Clause (g) of Para
3.4 of the office memorandum. The
clarification having been issued, the same
should be taken into consideration by this
Court irrespective of the fact as to
whether it was available to the Public
Service Commission on 16-3-2004 when
the DPC held its meeting which, in our
opinion, was not of much significance.

33. The clarification being
explanatory and/or clarificatory, in our
opinion, will have a retrospective effect.

34. In S.S. Grewal v. State of
Punjab [1993 Supp (3) SCC 234 : 1993
SCC (L&S) 1098 : (1993) 25 ATC 579]
this Court stated the law thus: (SCC pp.
240-41, para 9)

"9. ... In this context it may be
stated that according to the principles of
statutory construction a statute which is
explanatory or clarificatory of the earlier
enactment
is
usually
held
to
be
retrospective. (See Craies on Statute Law,
7th Edn., p. 58.) It must, therefore, be
held
that
all
appointments
against
vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes
made after May 5, 1975 (after May 14,
1977 insofar as the service is concerned),
have to be made in accordance with the
instructions as contained in the letter
dated May 5, 1975 as clarified by letter
dated April 8, 1980."

35. Yet again in CIT v. Podar
Cement (P) Ltd. [(1997) 5 SCC 482] this
Court referring to a large number of
authorities including that of G.P. Singh's
Principles of Statutory Interpretation,
observed: (SCC p. 506, para 51)

"51. ... ''... An amending Act may
be purely clarificatory to clear a meaning
of a provision of the principal Act which
was already implicit. A clarificatory
amendment of this nature will have
retrospective effect and, therefore, if the
principal Act was existing law when the
Constitution came into force, the amending
Act also will be part of the existing law.' "
3 All. Mohit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
161

36. This Court in Allied Motors
(P) Ltd. v. CIT [(1997) 3 SCC 472]
observed: (SCC pp. 479-80, para 13)

"13. Therefore, in the well-known
words of Judge Learned Hand, one cannot
make a fortress out of the dictionary; and
should remember that statutes have some
purpose and object to accomplish whose
sympathetic and imaginative discovery is
the surest guide to their meaning. In R.B.
Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [(1971) 3 SCC
369] this Court said that one should apply
the rule of reasonable interpretation. A
proviso which is inserted to remedy
unintended consequences and to make the
provision workable, a proviso which
supplies an obvious omission in the section
and is required to be read into the section
to
give
the
section
a
reasonable
interpretation, requires to be treated as
retrospective in operation so that a
reasonable interpretation can be given to
the section as a whole."

29. In the case of Ashok Lanka vs
Rishi Dikshit and others; (2006) 9 SCC
90, the Apex Court in para 67, 68 and 69
held as under:

"67. Ordinarily, a subordinate
legislation cannot be given a retrospective
effect. The notification dated 5-7-2005,
however, is said to be clarificatory in
nature. A clarificatory notification can be
given
retrospective
effect.
Such
a
clarification, according to the State, was
necessary to be issued as there was an
apparent conflict between the Hindi version
and the English version of the notification.

68. It may be true that before the
High Court such a contention has not been
raised but we are satisfied about the bona
fide of the State in this behalf. In that view
of the matter, it was not necessary for the
District-Level Committee or the State to
verify the criminal background of the
family members of the applicants.

69.
Presumably,
character
certificates were required to be issued by
the respective Superintendents of Police in
respect of the candidates concerned. Of
course, if they had been residing at
different places at different points of time,
such character certificates were required to
be issued by the Superintendent of Police of
each such place. But the same would not
mean that character certificates were
required to be produced by the candidates
in respect of their family members also
particularly when it was not certain as to
who would come within the purview of the
said term. It was in that sense the
notification
dated
5-7-2005
was
a
clarificatory one, and, therefore, could be
given a retrospective effect."

30. In the case of Union of India and
others
vs
Martin
Lottery
Agencies
Limited; (2009) 12 SCC 209, in paras 43,
44 and 49, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:

"43. The question as to whether a
subordinate legislation or a parliamentary
statute would be held to be clarificatory or
declaratory or not would indisputably
depend upon the nature thereof as also the
object it seeks to achieve. What we intend
to say is that if two views are not possible,
resort to clarification and/or declaration
may not be permissible.

44. This aspect of the matter has
been considered by this Court in Virtual
Soft Systems Ltd.