# Radhika Prasad v. Registar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr - **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 2019 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-08-19 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 13017 of 2019 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Saral Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radhika-prasad-v-registar-general-high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-anr-44693 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote A. Police Act, 1861- Sections 2, 46(2)(c), 46(3), U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015- Rules 8, 15(a), 15(b), 15(c), 15(d), 15(e), 15(f); Notifications dated 17.06.2016 and 28.06.2017- Petition allowed while answering the following questions: 1) Whether the Selection Board transgressed its authority to alter/substitute the eligibility criteria (50 % marks) mandated in Rule 15(b) by normalized score to non-suit, all such ## Text 2 All. Radhika Prasad Vs Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr. 2019 violative of its own Government Order made applicable to all autonomous institutions. 54. No illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel in the Regulations, 2013, despite repeated opportunity. 55. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Act, 1964, the impugned order 8 January 2016 and 16 February 2018 passed by the State Government and the consequential order dated 19 March 2018 passed by t he Board, is set aside and quashed. The Board is directed to implement the Pension/Gratuity Scheme in terms of Regulations, 2013, within eight weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. 56. The writ petition is allowed. 57. No cost. ---------- (2019)10ILR A 2019 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ A No. 13017 of 2019 Radhika Prasad ...Petitioner Versus Registar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Narendra Pratap Singh, Sri Neeraj Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra A. U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 - Rules 3(b)-12-Notification dated 04.10.2012 by Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance of Pension - The Government competent to notify the age relaxation under Rule 12 is the Govt. of U.P. and not Union GovernmentNotification issued by the Central Government providing for age relaxation to Ex-Serviceman is not applicable to the recruitment made under the aforesaid Rules, which refer to the Govt. of U.P. (Para 8) Writ Petition dismissed (E-4) (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of this writ petition is seeking a direction to provisionally permit him to appear in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service, 2018 Part-III by giving 5 years of age relaxation to him as an ExServiceman as is being provided to the SC, ST and OBC candidates. 3. In this regard Rule 12 of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 is relevant which is reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience: - "12. Age-A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January 2020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES next following the year in which the notice inviting applications is published; Provided that the upper age limit shall be higher by three years in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time." 4. A plain reading of the aforesaid Rule reveals that the maximum age limit for appearing in the Higher Judicial Service is 45 years for general category of candidates as on the first day of January next following the year in which the notice inviting applications is published. The said age limit has been relaxed by 3 years only for SC and ST candidates. 5. There is no notification of the State Government providing any age relaxation for any other category of candidates much less the Ex-Serviceman. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance of Pension vide notification dated 4th October 2012 has provided for age relaxation for ExServiceman. 7. The aforesaid notification is not in respect any service of the State Government. The Government competent to notify the age relaxation under Rule 12 is the Government of U.P. 8. The definition of the Government as provided in Rule 3(b) of the Rules refers to the Government of U.P., and not to the Union Government. Therefore, notification issued by the Central Government providing for age relaxation to Ex-Serviceman is not applicable to the recruitment made under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. ---------- (2019)10ILR A 2020 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J. THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J. Writ A No. 23733 of 2018 alongwith Other Connected Cases Atul Kumar Dwivedi & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, Sri Ajay Singh Yadav, Sri Prashant Mishra, Sri Tarun Agrawal, Sri Venu Gopal. Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Hrithudhwaj Pratap Shahi, Sri M.M. Sahai, Sri Samarath Singh, Sri Sankalp Narain. A. Police Act, 1861- Sections 2, 46(2)(c), 46(3), U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015- Rules 8, 15(a), 15(b), 15(c), 15(d), 15(e), 15(f); Notifications dated 17.06.2016 and 28.06.2017- Petition allowed while answering the following questions: 1) Whether the Selection Board transgressed its authority to alter/substitute the eligibility criteria (50 % marks) mandated in Rule 15(b) by normalized score to non-suit, all such