# Prashant Kumar Mishra & Ors v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 421
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-14
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 70 of 2025
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prashant-kumar-mishra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52997
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Law
-
UP
Police
Radio
Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 - Part IV
- Reg. 8 (c) - Post of Operators/ Head
Operator (Mechanical) - Qualification -
Advertisement
require
three
years
Diploma - Petitioners, having Bachelor
Degree, claim themselves eligible as it is a
higher qualification - Permissibility -
Held, any recruitment to public posts has
to be carried out strictly in accordance
with the provisions contained in the
Recruitment Rules - A Bachelor Degree
are not eligible for seeking appointment in
furtherance of the recruitment notification
dated 06.01.2022. (Para 6, 19 and 35)

B.
Service
Law
-
Candidature
-
Cancellation - False information given
during submission of the Application Form
- Effect - Held, the petitioners applied for
selection to the posts in question on their
own
by
submitting
false
information
regarding
their
eligibility
qualification
which renders their candidature liable to
be canceled. (Para 25)

C. Service Law - Qualification - Issue
regarding equivalence - Competence to
decide it - Equivalence of qualification for
the purpose of appointment to public
posts can be decided by the employer
alone. The employer in the present case is
the St. Government - The Recruitment
Board has no authority to take any
decision
regarding
equivalence
of
qualifications. (Para 21 and 39)
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
D. National Education Policy, 2020 -
Nature - How far it override the Rules -
Held, the policy is a vision document for
making improvements in the education
system in future - A mere policy cannot
override
the
specific
provisions
of
recruitment
Rules
and
unless
the
recruitment Rules are amended. (Para 32
and 33)

Special Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Prashant Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
421
have further ensured to provide security to
the witnesses during the recording of their
evidence.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party nos.2 to 4 has opposed the
aforesaid prayer but agreed to cooperate in
the trial proceedings.

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the
parties and after taking into consideration the
entire facts and circumstances, it transpires
that the trial is at the stage of evidence and
the
applicant/informant
was
provided
adequate security at the time of the recording
of the evidence as PW-1 and further
considering the fact that the applicant has not
brought on record any real apprehension of
threat from the respondents accused but
looking to the convenience of the parties and
in the interest of justice, it is hereby provided
that in case, the applicant/first informant or
any of the witnesses approaches the
authorities
concerned
by
moving
an
application seeking protection under the
Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 in the
light of directions given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra
Chawla and others vs. Union of India and
others, (2019) 14 SCC 615 for a free and fair
trial, the authorities concerned shall ensure
that the adequate security be provided to the
applicant and the witnesses till the conclusion
of the trial.

8. With the aforesaid directions, the
present application stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 421
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 70 of 2025

Prashant Kumar Mishra & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mohd. Mansoor, Mohammad Danish

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ripu Daman Shahi

A.
Service
Law
-
UP
Police
Radio
Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 - Part IV
- Reg. 8 (c) - Post of Operators/ Head
Operator (Mechanical) - Qualification -
Advertisement
require
three
years
Diploma - Petitioners, having Bachelor
Degree, claim themselves eligible as it is a
higher qualification - Permissibility -
Held, any recruitment to public posts has
to be carried out strictly in accordance
with the provisions contained in the
Recruitment Rules - A Bachelor Degree
are not eligible for seeking appointment in
furtherance of the recruitment notification
dated 06.01.2022. (Para 6, 19 and 35)

B.
Service
Law
-
Candidature
-
Cancellation - False information given
during submission of the Application Form
- Effect - Held, the petitioners applied for
selection to the posts in question on their
own
by
submitting
false
information
regarding
their
eligibility
qualification
which renders their candidature liable to
be canceled. (Para 25)

C. Service Law - Qualification - Issue
regarding equivalence - Competence to
decide it - Equivalence of qualification for
the purpose of appointment to public
posts can be decided by the employer
alone. The employer in the present case is
the St. Government - The Recruitment
Board has no authority to take any
decision
regarding
equivalence
of
qualifications. (Para 21 and 39)
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
D. National Education Policy, 2020 -
Nature - How far it override the Rules -
Held, the policy is a vision document for
making improvements in the education
system in future - A mere policy cannot
override
the
specific
provisions
of
recruitment
Rules
and
unless
the
recruitment Rules are amended. (Para 32
and 33)

Special Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Deepak Singh & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2020 (1) ALJ 596: 2019 SCC OnLine All

2. Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs
Sandeep Shriram Warade; (2019) 6 SCC 362

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri J. N. Mathur, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Mansoor and
Sri Mohd. Danish Advocates, the learned
counsel for the appellants, Sri Shailendra
Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing
Counsel assisted by Sri Prafulla Kumar
Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
State/opposite parties no.1 to 4, Sri Ratnesh
Chandra, the learned counsel for the opposite
parties no.5 to 19 and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant intra Court
appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of
the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 the
appellants have challenged the validity of a
judgment and order dated 08.01.2025,
passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge Bench
of this Court in Writ-A No.4610 of 2024:
Ravi Kumar Shukla and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others, which was decided along
with Writ-A No.7284 of 2024: Prabhat
Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others.

3. The aforesaid Writ Petition had
been filed by 15 petitioners, who have been
arrayed as opposite parties no.5 to 19 in
this Special Appeal, against the appellants,
who were opposite parties no.1 to 4 in the
writ petition challenging the validity of a
resolution passed in a meeting of the U. P.
Police Recruitment and Promotion Board
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Recruitment
Board') on 23.04.2024, whereby the
Recruitment Board modified its previous
resolution dated 25.08.2021. The earlier
resolution dated 25.08.2021 had provided
that persons holding 4 years' Bachelor
Degree should also be eligible for the post
of Operator/Head Operator (Mechanical)
and this decision was revoked by the
resolution dated 23.04.2024.

4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are
that the Recruitment Board had issued an
advertisement dated 06.01.2022 for making
direct
recruitment
on
936
posts
of
Operators/Head Operators (Mechanical).
The educational qualification mentioned in
the advertisement was possessing a 3 years'
Diploma
in
Electronics
/
Telecommunication / Electrical / Computer
Science
/
Information
Technology
/
Instrumentation Technology / Mechanical
Engineering awarded by any Board in India
established by law or having passed any
other
examination
treated
by
the
Government as equivalent thereto.

5. It appears that numerous candidates
possessing Bachelor Degree in Mechanical
Engineering also applied in response to the
aforesaid advertisement mentioning their
qualification
as
diploma
and
they
participated in the written examination.
Thereafter, the Recruitment Board passed
the impugned resolution dated 23.04.2024
stating that it was revoking its earlier
resolution that candidates possessing 4
years' Bachelor Degree will also be eligible
for the post in question.
2 All. Prashant Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
423

6. The petitioners contended that prior
to issuance of the advertisement dated
06.01.2022, the Recruitment Board had
taken a decision in its meeting held on
25.08.2021, whereby it was resolved that
the candidates having 4 years Bachelor
Degree in streams like Electronics /
Telecommunication / Electrical / Computer
Science
/
Information
Technology
/
Instrumentation Technology / Mechanical
Engineering will be eligible for selection,
as they possess a higher qualification.

7. It was pleaded in the Writ Petition
that a copy of the resolution dated
25.08.2021 passed by the Recruitment
Board
was
not
available
with
the
petitioners even till filing of the Writ
Petition. A candidate Vidya Sagar was
stated to have submitted an application
dated 01.03.2024 under the Right to
Information Act and it was informed in its
reply dated 03.04.2024 that in its resolution
dated 25.08.2021 the Recruitment Board
had decided that the candidates possessing
4 years' Bachelor Degree will also be
eligible.

8. The State filed a counter affidavit
opposing the Writ Petition stating that the
recruitment is being conducted under the
provisions
of
U.P.
Police
Radio
Subordinate Services Rules, 2015; that in
the
recruitment
notification
dated
06.01.2022 the qualification advertised was
as per the provisions contained in the Rule
8-C of the Rules of 2015; that as per the
Rules the right to determine equivalence of
qualifications
lies
with
the
State
Government and the State Government has
not taken any decision to treat a Bachelor
Degree equivalent to a Diploma for the
purpose of the aforesaid Rules; that the
Recruitment Board does not have the
authority to determine the equivalence of
qualifications.

9. The State further pleaded that the
advertisement specifically stated that it will
be the responsibility of the candidate to
present the documentary evidence to prove
the accuracy, correctness and equivalence
of the educational qualification displayed in
the application form. All the petitioners
submitted their applications through online
mode and all of them mentioned their
educational
qualification
as
Diploma,
although they did not possess Diplomas
and they possessed Bachelor Degrees. It
was clearly mentioned that in the admit
cards issued to the candidates that they
were being permitted to appear in the
written examination on a provisional basis
and the educational certificates of the
candidates were to be examined at the time
of scrutiny of records and physical standard
test. The counter affidavit further states that
there is no mention of the resolution dated
25.08.2021, passed by the Recruitment
Board in the recruitment notification.

10. Twelve persons, including the 4
appellants and the opposite parties no. 20 to
27 who have been impleaded in proforma
capacity,
filed
an
application
for
impleadment in the Writ Petition, which
application was allowed. They pleaded that
they possess the qualification prescribed by
the Service Rules of 2015 and published in
the
recruitment
notification
dated
06.01.2022. They further pleaded that the 4
year Bachelor course and 3 years Diploma
course in any branch of engineering are
altogether different. They relied upon a Full
Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Deepak Singh and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others: 2020 (1) ALJ 596: 2019
SCC OnLine All 4471.
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The Hon'ble Single Judge decided
the
Writ
Petition
by
the
impugned
judgment and order dated 08.01.2025,
wherein it held that: -

"16...The Rules as it stands out
today clearly indicate that it is only the
Diploma holders who are eligible to be
appointed to the post of Head Operator /
Head Operator (Mechanic). The Board, in
exercise of its power to process the
selection is an executive body tasked only
to carry out the machinery provisions of
recruitment. They are not the appointing
authority or the controlling authority of the
persons who they seek to recruit. They must
comply with various service Rules which
provide for eligibility conditions of the
candidates who are to be recruited. They
are bound by the conditions of service
Rule, and they are totally incompetent to
issue any clarification with regard to the
eligibility of the candidates who are to
participated in the recruitment process.
Such an order passed by the relevant
recruitment board was at the very start
arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
Subsequently, they proceeded to ratify the
order by means of order dated 31.01.2024
and subsequently, in a few days they took a
u-turn and by means of the impugned
order dated 23.04.2024 stated that they
substantially modified the previous order
dated 25.08.2021 and further to declare
that the candidates having qualification of
4 years degree course of engineering would
not be eligible to participate in the said
recruitment examination. When the Police
Recruitment Board was aware of the fact
that they could not determine or modify or
change the eligibility conditions then they
should have refrained from making any
statement/declaration with regard to the
eligibility of persons possessing a degree in
the impugned order dated 23.04.2024. It
was only the State government who could
have passed any order pertaining to the
equivalence.

17. From the aforesaid facts, it is
clear
that
merely
because
of
the
unauthorized and unlawful interference of
the Police Recruitment Board by issuing
the
order
dated
25.08.2021
and
subsequently, issuing orders on 01.04.2024
and 23.04.2024 the entire selection process
has been called in question and majority of
the candidates are not aware as to whether
they are eligible to participate or they are
ineligible to participate in the said
recruitment examination. We have been
informed by the learned standing counsel
that 75% of the candidates who have
participated in the selection process are
engineering degree holders.
* * *

25. The decision of the selection
board
dated
25.08.2021
declaring
engineering degree holders eligible was
questionable, as any determination of
equivalence between an engineering degree
and a diploma should have been made
solely
by
the
State
Government
in
accordance with Rule 8 of the said Rules.
Recognizing its mistake, the selection
board attempted to rectify the error
through the impugned order, declaring
engineering degree holders ineligible to
participate in the selection process.

26. Such an exercise, carried out
during the selection process, strikes at the
very root of its fairness and transparency.
Determining or clarifying the eligibility of
candidates after the commencement of the
selection process is inherently flawed, as
such matters should have been resolved
before the publication of the advertisement.
This failure to finalize eligibility conditions
in a timely manner vitiates the entire
selection process.
* * *
2 All. Prashant Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425

32. Accordingly, we find that the
entire selections which has been conducted
stands
vitiated
on
account
of
the
unwarranted interference and passing of
orders by the Police Recruitment Board
and also considering that a substantial
percentage (about 75%) of the candidates
are adversely affected by the illegal and
arbitrary interference of the selection
board. Accordingly, the entire selection as
such is set aside. The respondents are
directed to finalize the eligibility conditions
and amend the service rules, in case they so
desire. Once they have taken a decision in
this regard, they should publish a fresh
advertisement
clearly
indicating
the
eligibility conditions for the qualification
for the post of Head Operator / Head
Operator (Mechanic) and after publishing
of the said advertisement they should
conduct the recruitment process and
conclude the same at the earliest in
accordance with law. Since two and half
years have lapsed since the advertisement
was issued and many of the candidates may
have become overage, and considering it is
only
on
account
of
the
acts
of
omission/commission of the respondents
that the present recruitment is being set
aside, it would be in the interest of justice,
to permit such candidates who possess
requisite educational qualifications and
have
participated
in
the
present
recruitment process to participate in the
next recruitment process, ignoring only
their requirement of age."

12. Challenging the validity of the
aforesaid order the learned Counsel for the
appellants has submitted that the finding of
the learned Writ Court that it is only the
Diploma holders who are eligible to be
appointed to the posts in question, is
correct and the Writ Petition ought to have
been dismissed on this finding alone. The
Writ Court has erred in allowing the Writ
Petition and setting aside the entire
selection
holding
that
although
the
petitioners are not eligible to participate in
the selection process since a Bachelor
Degree in Engineering was not the
prescribed qualification, guided by the
decision of the selection board dated
25.08.2021 they applied for and were
permitted to participate in the written
examination contrary to the eligibility
prescribed.

13. Sri Prafulla Kumar Yadav, the
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State, has
submitted that the Recruitment Board was
required to carry out the recruitment as per
the Service Rules of 2015. As per the
Rules, the authority to take any decision
regarding equivalence of qualifications
vested in the State Government and the
Recruitment Board had no such authority.
Any decision taken by the Recruitment
Board without any authority of law would
be null and void and it would not affect the
rights of any person regarding the selection
process.

14. The learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has produced a copy of
the counter affidavit filed by the State and
he has invited attention of the Court to the
applications submitted by the petitioners, in
which
they
had
mentioned
their
qualification as Diploma in Engineering
and they did not mention that they possess
Bachelor Degrees.

15. This appeal was taken up as a fresh
case on 12.02.2025 on which date it was
passed over on the request made by Sri
Ratnesh Chandra, the learned counsel for
respondent nos. 5 to 19, who were the
petitioners in the Writ Petition and who are
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons
holding
Bachelor
Degree
in
engineering, that he was in the process of
filing a Special Appeal on behalf of the
petitioners in the Writ Petition and both the
appeals
may
be
heard
together
on
14.02.2025. Today also a request was made
by him that he had filed the Special Appeal
and the same should be called for from the
Registry and heard along with the instant
appeal but later on he informed the Court
that his appeal was not ready to be filed
today.

16. Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel
has vehemently opposed the Special Appeal
on behalf of respondent nos.5 to 19 and he has
submitted that the petitioners possess a higher
qualification of 4 years' Bachelor Degree,
which includes the syllabus taught in the 3
years' Diploma courses and, therefore, the
petitioners are fully eligible for being
appointed to a post for which the eligibility
qualification is a 3 years' Diploma. He has
submitted that the persons holding Bachelor
Degree in Engineering would be eligible to be
appointed on posts for which the eligibility
qualification is Diploma in engineering as per
the National Education Policy, 2020 issued by
the Government of India.

17. The learned Counsel for the
opposite parties no. 5 to 19 further
submitted that once the Recruitment Board
took the decision dated 25.08.2021 that
candidates having Bachelor Degree will be
eligible for appointment to the posts in
question, the same cannot be rescinded by
the subsequent decision dated 23.04.2024
after
the
petitioners
had
already
participated in the written examination.

18.
We
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for parties and have gone through
the material available on record.

19. It is settled law that any
recruitment to public posts has to be carried
out
strictly
in
accordance
with
the
provisions contained in the Recruitment
Rules. Recruitment to the post of Head
Operator/Head Operator (Mechanical) is
governed by the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio
Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 (which
will hereinafter be referred to as 'the
Service Rules of 2015'). Part-IV of the
aforesaid
regulations
deals
with
eligibilities. Regulation 8 (c) falling in PartIV of the aforesaid regulation provides the
following eligibility qualification for the
post
of
Operators/Head
Operators
(Mechanical): -

"The candidate should have
passed a 3 years' Diploma course in
Electronics
/
Telecommunication
/
Electrical / Computer Science / Information
Technology / Instrumentation Technology /
Mechanical Engineering awarded by any
Board in India established by law or
having passed any other examination
treated by the Government as equivalent
thereto."

20. Rule 3 (g) of the Rules of 2005
defines that "Government' means the
Government of Uttar Pradesh.

21. It is settled law that equivalence of
qualification
for
the
purpose
of
appointment to public posts can be decided
by the employer alone. The employer in the
present case is the State Government. The
Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly held that
the Recruitment Board has to carry out the
recruitment as per the provisions contained
in the relevant service Rules and the
conditions published in the recruitment
notification. It has no authority to take any
decision
regarding
equivalence
of
qualifications.
2 All. Prashant Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427

22. It was in accordance with the
aforesaid
Rule
that
the
eligibility
qualification
was
published
in
the
recruitment notification dated 06.01.2022.
Apparently,
a
Bachelor
Degree
in
engineering is not included in the eligibility
condition either in the Rules of 2015 or in
the
recruitment
advertisement.
The
petitioners and numerous other persons
possessing
Bachelor
Degrees
in
Engineering applied for being appointed to
the posts in question and all of them
mentioned their qualification to be a
Diploma in Engineering. Apparently, the
candidates possessing Bachelor Degree in
engineering
had
submitted
false
information in their applications regarding
the eligibility qualification.

23. Clause 10 (4) of the recruitment
notification dated 06.01.2022 provides that
if it is found at any stage that the candidate
does not possess the requisite qualifications
or he has furnished incorrect / false
information / certificate / documents or he
has concealed any facts, his candidature
shall be deemed to be canceled. If any such
fact comes to light even after the candidate
has joined his duties, his services can be
terminated and his selection can be
canceled and he will be prosecuted.

24. Moreover, the resolution dated
25.08.2021 passed by the Recruitment
Board was never published and it was
never communicated to the petitioners or
any other candidate. This resolution was
not available with the petitioners even at
the time of filing of the Writ Petition as has
specifically been pleaded in para 8 of the
Writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners or
any other candidate cannot claim that
although the Service Rules and the
recruitment
notification
mention
the
eligibility qualification to be a 3 years'
Diploma in Engineering, the resolution
dated 25.08.2021 led them to believe that
they persons holding Bachelor degree in
Engineering would also be eligible as this
qualification is equivalent to a Diploma in
Engineering.

25.
The
petitioners
applied
for
selection to the posts in question on their
own by submitting false information
regarding their eligibility qualification
which renders their candidature liable to be
canceled.

26. In Deepak Singh (Supra), the
following questions were decided by a Full
Bench of this Court: -

"A. Whether a Degree in the field
in question is entitled to be viewed as a
higher qualification when compared to a
Diploma in that field?

B. Whether the decisions in Alok
Kumar Mishra and Kartikey lay down the
correct position in law when they hold that
a Degree holder is excluded from the zone
of consideration for appointment as a
Junior Engineer?

C. Whether a degree holder can
be held to be ineligible to participate in a
selection process for Junior Engineer in
light of the relevant statutory Rules?

D. Whether the exclusion of
degree
holders
from
the
zone
of
consideration would meet the tests as
propounded by the Supreme Court in State
of Uttarakhand v. Deep Chandra Tewari?"

27.
The
Full
Bench
given
the
following answers to the questions: -

"1) A Diploma in Engineering
and Degree in Engineering are two distinct
qualifications and a degree in the field in
question cannot be viewed as a higher
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
qualification when compared to Diploma in
that field.

2) The decision in the case of
Alok Kumar Mishra (supra) and Kartikey
(supra) laid down the correct position in
law holding that the degree holder is
excluded from the zone of consideration for
appointment as a Junior Engineer with
regard to the Diploma in question.

3) The degree holder is held to be
ineligible to participate in the selection
process of Junior Engineer in the light of
the Advertisement issued.

4) The exclusion of the degree
holders from the zone of consideration is in
consonance with the tests propounded by
the Supreme Court in case of State of
Uttarakhand v. Deep Chandra Tewari.

5) The State Government, while
prescribing the essential qualifications or
desirable qualifications are best suited to
decide the requirements for selecting a
candidate for nature of work required by
the State Government and the courts are
precluded from laying down the conditions
of eligibility. If the language in the Rules is
clear judicial review cannot be used to
decide what is best suited for the
employer."

28. The aforesaid law laid down by the
Full Bench is binding on this Court.

29. So far as the submission made by
the learned Counsel for the opposite parties
no. 5 to 19 that as per the National
Education
Policy,
2020,
a
person
possessing Bachelor Degree in engineering
is entitled to be appointed to the post for
which Diploma in Engineering is the
essential qualification, suffice it to say this
is a new plea raised for the first time in this
appeal and this plea was not taken before
the Writ Court.

30. It is stated in the National
Education Policy that the "Policy proposes
the revision and revamping of all aspects of
the education structure, including its
regulation and governance, to create a new
system that is aligned with the aspirational
goals of 21st century, while building upon
India's traditions and value systems.

31. Chapter 11 of the Policy is titled
'Towards
a
More
Holistic
and
Multidisciplinary Education' and clause
11.09 of the policy reliance whereon has
been placed by Sri Ratnesh Chandra
provides as follows:

"11.9. The structure and lengths
of degree programmes shall be adjusted
accordingly. The undergraduate degree
will be of either 3 or 4-year duration, with
multiple exit options within this period,
with appropriate certifications, e.g., a
certificate after completing 1 year in a
discipline or field including vocational and
professional areas, or a diploma after 2
years of study, or a Bachelor ' s degree
after a 3-year programme. The 4-year
multidisciplinary
Bachelor
programme,
however, shall be the preferred option
since
it
allows
the
opportunity
to
experience the full range of holistic and
multidisciplinary education in addition to a
focus on the chosen major and minors as
per the choices of the student. An Academic
Bank of Credit (ABC) shall be established
which would digitally store the academic
credits earned from various recognized
HEIs so that the degrees from an HEI can
be awarded taking into account credits
earned. The 4-year programme may also
lead to a degree 'with Research' if the
student completes a rigorous research
project in their major area(s) of study as
specified by the HEI."
2 All. Prashant Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
429

32. Apparently, the policy is a vision
document for making improvements in the
education system in future. Further, there is
nothing on record to indicate that the
proposals of the National Education Policy,
2020 regarding Diploma and Degree
contained in Clause 11.9 have actually been
implemented and that the petitioners had
studied the modified syllabus as per the
National Education Policy, 2020 under
which they have studied the syllabus which
is taught to the students of 3 years'
Diploma in engineering. In response to a
specific question put by the Court Sri
Ratnesh Chandra stated that all the
petitioners have obtained their Bachelor
degree prior to the commencement of
National Education Policy, 2020.

33. A mere policy cannot override
the specific provisions of recruitment
Rules and unless the recruitment Rules
are amended thereby including a 3 years'
Diploma as an eligibility qualification or
unless the State Government takes a
decision treating 4 years' Bachelor
Degree in Engineering as equivalent to a
3 years' Diploma, the recruitment must
be carried out in accordance with the
provisions contained in the recruitment
Rules and the conditions mentioned in the
recruitment notification. The persons who
do not hold the prescribed qualification
cannot seek appointment against the post
in question.

34. The questions relating to syllabus
of a Diploma in Engineering and a
Bachelor Degree in Engineering can only
be decided by persons having expertise in
the concerned fields and it falls outside the
scope of judicial review by this Court. In
Maharashtra Public Service Commission
v. Sandeep Shriram Warade: (2019) 6
SCC 362, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated this principle in the following
words: -

"9. The essential qualifications
for appointment to a post are for the
employer to decide. The employer may
prescribe
additional
or
desirable
qualifications, including any grant of
preference. It is the employer who is best
suited to decide the requirements a
candidate must possess according to the
needs of the employer and the nature of
work. The court cannot lay down the
conditions of eligibility, much less can it
delve into the issue with regard to desirable
qualifications being on a par with the
essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of
equivalence will also fall outside the
domain of judicial review. If the language
of the advertisement and the rules are
clear, the court cannot sit in judgment
over the same. If there is an ambiguity in
the advertisement or it is contrary to any
rules or law the matter has to go back to
the appointing authority after appropriate
orders, to proceed in accordance with law.
In no case can the court, in the garb of
judicial review, sit in the chair of the
appointing authority to decide what is best
for
the
employer
and
interpret
the
conditions of the advertisement contrary to
the plain language of the same."

(Emphasis added)

35. Therefore, we are in agreement
with the view taken by the Writ Court that
the persons holding a Bachelor Degree are
not eligible for seeking appointment in
furtherance of the recruitment notification
dated 06.01.2022. However, we find
ourselves unable to agree with the view
taken by the Writ Court in setting aside the
entire
selection
and
directing
the
respondents to finalize the eligibility
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conditions and amend the service rules, in
case they so desire, and to publish a fresh
advertisement
clearly
indicating
the
eligibility conditions for the qualification
for the post of Head Operator / Head
Operator (Mechanic). Such a direction
could only be issued if there was any
ambiguity in the advertisement or it was
contrary to any rules or law, which is not
the case here.

36. In the present case the language of
the advertisement and the rules are clear,
that the eligibility qualification for the
posts in question is that "The candidate
should have passed a 3 years' Diploma
course in Electronics / Telecommunication
/
Electrical
/
Computer
Science
/
Information Technology / Instrumentation
Technology / Mechanical Engineering
awarded by any Board in India established
by law or having passed any other
examination treated by the Government as
equivalent thereto" and Rule 3 (g) of the
Rules of 2005 defines that "Government'
means the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
The Court cannot sit in judgment over the
same. In absence of any ambiguity in the
advertisement
and
in
absence
of
contravention of any rule, there was no
justification for setting aside the selection
process and to send the matter back to the
appointing
authority
to
finalize
the
eligibility conditions and amend the service
rules, in case they so desire.

37. The recruitment process initiated
as per the recruitment Rules has to allowed
to be completed and it cannot be set aside
for the mere reason that a large number of
ineligible persons have participated in the
selection process and they have appeared in
the written examination. As has already
been noted above, the ineligible persons
holding Bachelor Degree have participated
in the selection process by submitting false
information regarding their educational
qualifications,
which
makes
their
candidature liable to be canceled. The mere
fact that they were allowed to provisionally
appear in the written examination as per the
information submitted by themselves in
their online application forms and the fact
that they do not possess the eligibility
qualification would be revealed only upon
scrutiny of their documents would not
create
an
estoppel
restraining
the
authorities
from
cancelling
their
candidature.

38. In case the persons holding
Bachelor Degrees in Engineering were
aggrieved by the non-mention of this
qualification in the advertisement, the
proper course open for them was to
challenge the same promptly i.e. as soon as
the advertisement was published. They
could not have participated in the selection
process when they did not possess the
prescribed qualification, and in any case,
they could not have participated by
furnishing false information regarding their
qualification in their application submitted
through online mode.

39. The Recruitment Board had no
authority
to
decide
the
eligibility
qualifications as per Rule 8 (c) of the
Service Rules and the resolution dated
25.08.2021 passed by the Recruitment
Board which was under challenge in the
Writ Petition is concerned, has no legal
consequence.
The
resolution
dated
25.08.2021 was neither published nor was
it communicated to the candidates in any
manner and it did not confer any right or
even semblance thereof on any person.
Therefore,
the
revocation
of
the
unpublished resolution dated 25.08.2021 by
the subsequent resolution dated 23.04.2024,
2 All. Smt. Durgesh Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
431
does not cause any prejudice to any
candidate and it does not vitiate the
selection process.

40. Therefore, we find ourselves
unable to agree with the view taken by the
Hon'ble Single Judge that the aforesaid
resolutions vitiate the selection process.

41.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
discussions, the intra Court appeal is
hereby allowed. The impugned judgment
and order dated 08.01.2025 is upheld to the
extent that it holds that the persons
possessing Bachelor Degree in engineering
are not eligible for being appointed to the
posts in question. However, that part of the
judgment of the Writ Court by which the
entire selection process has been set aside
and the authorities have been directed to
finalize the eligibility conditions and
amend the service rules, in case they so
desire, is not sustainable in law in view of
the discussion made above and the same is
hereby set aside. Costs made easy.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 431
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ-A No. 713 of 2025

Smt. Durgesh Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Abhishek Bhushan, Sri Himanshu Singh,
Sri Anil Bhushan (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law-salary-On basis of a complaint
made by a complainant - an enquiry was
initiated despite earlier complaint by the same
person was rejected-impugned order- salary
stopped -stating that petitioner's appointment
was subject to the Writ which was dismissed as
withdrawn and interim order was vacated -
therefore, order of approval itself becomes
inoperative and their salary got stopped -writappointment of petitioners were approved by
the DIOS during pendency of the writ petitionon basis of consideration by Finance Section -
said approval order not challenged-acted upon
by granting promotion-impugned order set
aside.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2025:AHC:6788
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The petitioners have set up a case
that respondent, a minority institution, has
issued an advertisement to fill up three
substantive vacancies for the post of
Assistant
Teachers
LT
grade.
The
petitioners have applied for the said post
and were duly appointed and in pursuance
of their respective appointment letters, they
joined service on 1st August 1998. Further
case is that Committee of Management of
concerned institution have submitted the
documents to concerned DIOS for approval
on 7th August 1998.

2. It is further case of the
petitioners that when concerned DIOS has
not passed any specific order in terms of
the relevant provisions, their approval was
deemed to be approved and when their
salaries were not paid, they constrained to