# Raj Singh v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 1247
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-24
- **Case number:** Writ-A No.16436 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-singh-v-u-o-i-ors-50860
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service law - Selection - Post of
Assistant
Registrar
-
Shortlisting
of
candidates
-
Permissibility
-
1793
candidates applied for four posts - Tool of
shortlisting by fixing a criteria of first
division (or 60% or higher) was resorted
to to limit the number of candidates -
Permissibility - Principle of not changing
the games of selection in mid-way -
Applicability - Held, interpretation that it
is not permissible for the respondents to
have changed the rules of the game once
the game has commenced is preposterous
as the said principle is not applicable in
the cases of shortlisting. Nonetheless,
nothing has been brought on record to
substantiate that even otherwise the
criteria
adopted
for
shortlisting
is
arbitrary or illegal or not backed by any
provision. (Para 17 and 22)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Raj Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1247
judgment. If the respondents choose to
proceed afresh, they will conclude the
inquiry
expeditiously,
wherein
the
petitioner shall cooperate.

33. The petitioner shall receive
current emoluments, unaffected by the
impugned order, since quashed, but arrears
shall abide by the result of further orders
that may be made, if proceedings are taken
afresh against the petitioner; else, arrears, if
any, shall become payable immediately.

34. There shall be no order as to cost.

----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1247
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-A No.16436 of 2023

Raj Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Namit Srivastava, Sri Sarthak Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ajal Krishna, Ms. Pooja
Agarwal, Sri Satendra Kumar Upadhyay

A. Service law - Selection - Post of
Assistant
Registrar
-
Shortlisting
of
candidates
-
Permissibility
-
1793
candidates applied for four posts - Tool of
shortlisting by fixing a criteria of first
division (or 60% or higher) was resorted
to to limit the number of candidates -
Permissibility - Principle of not changing
the games of selection in mid-way -
Applicability - Held, interpretation that it
is not permissible for the respondents to
have changed the rules of the game once
the game has commenced is preposterous
as the said principle is not applicable in
the cases of shortlisting. Nonetheless,
nothing has been brought on record to
substantiate that even otherwise the
criteria
adopted
for
shortlisting
is
arbitrary or illegal or not backed by any
provision. (Para 17 and 22)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited:

1. St. of Kerala Vs K.S. Govindan Nair; 2022 (0)
Supreme (Ker) 387

2. Appeal (Civil) No. 1313 of 2008; K. Manjusree
Vs St. of A.P. decided on 15.02.2008

3. B. Ramakichenin Vs U.O.I.; (2008) 1 SCC 362

4. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission
Vs Navnit Kumar Potdar & ors.; (1994) 6 SCC
293

5. Banaras Hindu University Vs Dr. Alok Kumar;
2023 (2) ADJ 353

6. U.O.I.& ors. Vs T. Sundararaman & ors.;
1997 (4) SCC 664

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

1. Heard Sri Namit Srivastava,
learned counsel for the writ petitioner,
notice on behalf of the first respondent
has been accepted by the Office of
learned ASGI, Sri Ajal Krishna, learned
counsel who appears for respondent No. 2
and Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel
who appears for respondents No. 3, 4 and
5.

2. Since affidavits have been
exchanged between the parties and the rival
parties do not propose to file any further
affidavit, thus, with the consent of the
parties, the writ petition is being decided at
the fresh stage.
1248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The case of the writ petitioner is
that the third respondent, Director, Indian
Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu
University (hereinafter referred to as the
respondent institute) got published an
advertisement No. 2 of 2022-23 inviting
online applications for non-faculty post in
Administrative/Ministerial/Works
Department/Technical Sector in the Indian
Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu
University including the post of Assistant
Registrar. As per same the opening date for
submission of online application was
04.02.2023 and the last date of submission
of online application was 28.02.2023 till
5:00 P.M. The writ petitioner claims to
have applied for the post of Assistant
Registrar break up whereof was 1 OBC, 1
ST, 2 Un-reserved Level 10 and the upper
age limit as on the last date of submission
of online application was 45 years. The
essential qualification for the said post was
Masters Degree with at least 55% of the
marks or its equivalent Grade 'B' in the
UGC seven point scale along with a good
academic record. Relaxation of 5% marks
(from 55% to 50%) would be provided at
Masters Level in the case of SC/ST/PD
candidates.
So
far
as
desirable
qualifications are concerned degree in
Management or LL.B, knowledge of
Computer, knowledge of GOI rules,
familiarity
with
working
in
technical/educational institutions of higher
education was provided containing a note
that the selection process may consist of
written
test,
group
discussion
and
interview.

4. Under the general instructions to
the candidates clause 4 provided as under:-

"4. Mere eligibility will not entitle
any
candidate
for being
called
for
interview/appear in the selection process.
More stringent criteria may be applied for
short-listing the candidates at any stage of
the selection process. Applicants having
higher qualification and merit may be
given preference."

5. The writ petitioner claims to have
applied for the said post and the application
form has been appended as Annexure 2 at
page 24 relevant extract at page 25 dated
24.02.2023 reference whereof has been
given in para 5. According to the writ
petitioner, he possessed the necessary
qualification of 10th ICSE, CMS with
77.50 marks, 12th ISE. CMS, Lucknow
with
69.80
marks,
Graduation
from
Lucknow University from the subject EcoSocial Work AIH 2006 with 50.60 marks
and Post-Graduation JIIT University JBS
subject, MBA in the year 2009 with 83
marks. The writ petitioner alleges that on
28.04.2023 a communication has been
issued under the caption "notice" wherein a
list of applicants not eligible for the post of
Assistant Registrar was published in which
the name of the writ petitioner has been
mentioned at serial No. 582.

6. The writ petitioner being shocked
and surprised to gather knowledge that he
has been not found to be eligible preferred
an E Mail dated 01.05.2023 which was
responded by the University on 17.05.2023
that, during the course of short listing he
was not found to be eligible for the post of
Assistant Registrar.

7.

Questioning
the
said
communication
dated
28.04.2023
and
17.05.2023 the writ petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.

8. This Court entertained the writ
petition on 05.10.2023 while passing the
following orders.-
1 All. Raj Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1249

"The argument of the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner is that
pursuant to an advertisement published by
the
respondent-University
under
the
caption "Indian Institute of Technology,
Banaras Hindu University, Advertisement
No.02/2022-23". Amongst other posts, the
post of Assistant Registrar was also
advertised, which comprised of one post of
OBC, one Scheduled Caste and Two Unreserved
and
as
per
the
essential
qualifications it was provided that the
incumbent should have Master's Degree
with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent
grade of B in the UGC seven-point scale,
along with a good academic record
providing for relaxation for SC/ST and
desirable qualification was also mentioned.

According to the writ petitioner,
he applied in pursuance of the said
advertisement
and
he
possesses
the
Graduation as well as Post-Graduation
Degree. However, he was ousted, as his
name did not find place in the list of
applicants eligible for being put to
selection.

According to the learned counsel
for the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner
obtained 50.60% marks in Graduation, so
he has been found to be ineligible for the
post of Assistant Registrar.

Learned counsel for the writ
petitioner relies upon the judgment in the
case of State of U.P. Vs. Karunesh Kumar,
Civil Appeal No.8822-8823/2022 decided
on 12.12.2022, so as to contend that the
rules of the game cannot be changed, when
the selection process commences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has
also
placed
reliance
upon
the
supplementary
affidavit
filed
today
whereby such type of stand, at no point of
time, was put to service to IIT, New Delhi.

Ms. Pooja Agarwal, who appears
for
the
respondent-University
has
submitted that there was clear stipulation
in the advertisement itself under the
General Instructions to the Candidate,
point no.4, according to which mere
eligibility will not entitle any candidate for
being called for interview/ appear in the
selection process, as stringent criteria may
be applied for short-listing the candidates
at any stage of the selection process. She
further submits that for the said posts, 1793
applications were filed and 652 were found
to be eligible being put to selection, thus
she submits that short-listing is a device,
which in Service Jurisprudence is adopted
or the purposes of limiting the candidates,
who appear in the selection in that regard.

Since a writ of certiorari is being
sought, let Ms. Pooja Agarwal who
appears for the University file an affidavit
by 10.10.2023.

Rejoinder, if any, may be filed by
11.10.2023.

Put up this case as fresh on
12.10.2023.

Supplementary
affidavit
filed
today is taken on record.

Sri Ajal Krishna has appeared for
the Respondent no.2."

9. A short counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of respondents No. 3, 4 and
5 sworn by the Assistant Registrar NFRC
IIT B.H.U., Varanasi dated 10.10.2023
followed by a supplementary counter
affidavit
filed
on
behalf
of
second
1250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent of the Assistant Director,
Northern Region AICTE dated 30.10.2023,
the
writ
petitioner
has
filed
a
supplementary affidavit dated 18.09.2023
and a rejoinder affidavit to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of third, fourth and
fifth respondents.

10. As already noticed, the counsels
for the rival parties did not propose to file
any further response, thus, the writ petition
is being decided at the fresh stage.

11. Sri Namit Srivastava, learned
counsel for the writ petitioner while
assailing the communications impugned in
the writ petition has sought to argue that
once as per the eligibility prescribed in the
advertisement in question for the post of
Assistant Registrar the writ petitioner
fulfilled the same then there was no
occasion for the respondents to have short
listed the name of the writ petitioner so as
to exclude him to participate in the
selection. He submits that the only basis
which has been taken for non-suiting the
claim of the writ petitioner is the fact that
huge number of candidates had applied for
the said post, thus, in order to limit the
candidates to appear in the selections the
first division (or 60% or higher) in High
School, Intermediate, Under Graduate and
Post-graduate was taken as a tool. He
submits that the games of the selections
could not have been changed in the midway particularly when the selection process
stood commenced after publication of the
advertisement and, thus, according to him,
the entire exercise is per se illegal arbitrary
and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
He seeks to rely upon the judgment of
Kerala High Court in the case of State of
Kerala Vs. K.S. Govindan Nair reported in
2022 (0) Supreme (Ker) 387 as well as the
judgment in the case of K. Manjusree Vs.
State of A.P. in Appeal (Civil) 1313 of
2008 decided on 15 February, 2008.

12. Countering the said submission,
Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel who
appears for the respondent-University has
sought to contend against 4 vacancies
which were being advertised comprising 1
OBC, 1 ST and 2 un-reserved as many as
1793 applications were received and after
witnessing the said position in order to
short list the candidates the respondents
applied the criteria of making those
applicants eligible who were having first
division (or 60% or higher) in High
Schools, Intermediate, Under-graduate and
Post-graduate and after applying the said
criteria also 652 candidates were short
listed.

13. The submission of Ms. Pooja
Agarwal, learned counsel who appears for
the University is that there happens to be a
specific clause contained in the general
instructions to the candidates in the
advertisement in question that, mere
eligibility will not entitle any candidate for
being called for interview/appear in the
selection process as mere stringent criteria
may be applied for short listing the
candidates at any stage of selection process
and applicants having higher qualifications
and merits may be given preference. She
seeks to rely upon the decision in the case
of B. Ramakichenin Vs. Union of India
(2008) 1 SCC 362 so as to contend that
short listing can even be resorted if there is
no rule to the said effect or there is no
mention in the advertisement as short
listing is a criteria which is widely
recognized in service jurisprudence which
is used as a tool to limit the number of
candidates once there are huge number of
candidates against lesser post. She has also
placed reliance upon the decision in the
1 All. Raj Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1251
case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service
Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar
and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 293
as well as the decision in the case of
Banaras Hindu University Vs. Dr. Alok
Kumar reported in 2023 (2) ADJ 353.

14. Sri Ajal Krishna who appears for
the AICTE, second respondent has adopted
the argument of Ms. Pooja Agarwal.

15. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record
carefully.

16. Undisputedly, an advertisement
was published by the respondents-Institute,
advertisement No. 2 of 2022-23 for various
posts including the post of Assistant
Registrar which are four in number 1 OBC,
1 ST and 2 un-reserved. Though the
advertisement prescribed the essential and
desirable qualifications on the post of
Assistant Registrar but clause IV of the
general instructions to the candidates of the
advertisement itself provided in clear terms
that mere eligibility will not entitle a
candidate
for
being
called
for
interview/appear in the selection process
and mere stringent criteria may be applied
for short listing the candidates at any stage
of selection process and applicants having
higher qualification and merit may be given
preference.

17. Here, in the present case as
apparent from the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent-institute it is apparent
that against the 4 posts of Assistant
Registrar as many as 1793 applications
were received and in order to limit the
number of candidates the tool of short
listing was resorted to while fixing a
criteria that the applicants having first
division (or 60% or higher) in High School,
Intermediate, Under-graduate and Postgraduate will be short listed. The counter
affidavit of the respondent-institute further
reveals that based on the said criteria 652
candidates were short listed.

18. Notably, clause IV to the general
instructions to the candidates has not been
put to challenge in the present writ petition
which is a source of power for resorting to
short listing and the terms and conditions
and the modalities according to which short
listing is to be done. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Public
Service Commission (supra) had the
occasion to consider the issue of short
listing
wherein
it
was
specifically
propounded that short listing can be
resorted to even if there is no rule to the
said effect for limiting the number of
candidates.

19. In the case of B. Ramakichenin
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 15,
16, 18 and 19 had observed as under.-

"15. It it well settled that the
method of shortlisting can be validly
adopted by the selection body vide M.P.
Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit
Kumar Potdar (vide paras 6, 8, 9 and 13)
and Govt. of A.P. Vs. P. Dilip Kumar.

16. Even if there is no rule
providing for shortlisting nor any mention
of it in the advertisement calling for
applications for the post, the selection body
can resort to a shortlisting procedure if
there are a large number of eligible
candidates who apply and it is not possible
for the authority to interview all of them.
For example, if for one or two posts there
are more than 1000 applications received
from eligible candidates, it may not be
possible to interview all of them. In this
1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
situation, the procedure of shortlisting can
be resorted to by the selection body, even
though there is no mention of shortlisting in
the rules or in the advertisement.

18. In the present case, no doubt,
UPSC had resorted to an objective and
rational criteria that only those who have
two years' experience after getting M.Sc
degree will not be considered, while those
who have got such experience but only
before getting M.Sc degree will not be
called for the interview. Ordinarily we
would not have taken exception to this
procedure since it is based on an objective
criteria, and ordinarily this Court does not
interfere with administrative decisions vide
Tata Cellular V. Union of India. As
observed in the said decision, the modern
approach is for courts to observe restraint
in administrative matters.

19. Hence, if the method of
shortlisting had not been prescribed by
UPSC or in a statutory rule, it is possible
that the argument of learned counsel for the
respondents may have been accepted and
we may not have interfered with the
method of shortlisting adopted by UPSC
since it appears to be based on a rational
and objective criteria."

20. More so, the division Bench of this
Court in the case of Dr. Alok Kumar
(supra) in paras 21 and 27 further observed
as under:-

"21. It is well-settled that any
clause in a document or a statute is not to
be read in isolation as to find its true
meaning. We would have therefore, to
accord consideration to other relevant
provisions in the advertisement which
enables the University to adopt short-listing
procedure. In the advertisement it has been
specifically provided that "Mere eligibility
will not entitle any candidate for being
called for interview. More stringent criteria
may be applied for short-listing the
candidates to be called for interview.
Applicants having higher qualification and
merit will be given preference. For teaching
positions short-listing shall be done as per
guidelines approved by Executive Council
of the University.

27. As the shortlisting exercise is
to be conducted only after receipt of
applications, the shortlisting criteria may be
fixed after the last date for receipt of
application forms, keeping in mind the
number of applications received. This
position is clear from the law laid down by
the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Public
Service Commission V. Navnit Kumar
Potdar's
case
(supra)
and
in
B.
Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi v. Union of
India and others case (supra) wherein it has
been clearly held that where selection is to
be made only on the basis of interview, the
Commission or the Selection Board can
adopt any rational procedure to fix the
number of candidates who should be called
for interview. It has been specifically held
by the Apex Court that even if there is no
rule providing for shortlisting nor any
mention of it in the advertisement calling
for applications for the post, the Selection
Body can resort to a shortlisting procedure
if there are a large number of eligible
candidates who apply and it is not possible
for the authority to interview all of them."

21. In the case of Union of India &
Others Vs. T. Sundararaman & Others
1997 (4) SCC 664 the Hon'ble Apex Court
in paras 2 and 4 has observed as under:-

"2. In the present case 37
applications were received for the three
1 All. Adarsh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1253
posts.
The
Commission
thereupon
shortlisted the candidates to be called for
interview on the basis of 4 years'
experience or more. As a result, 20
candidates were called for interview.
Respondent No. 1 did not qualify for
shortlisting and hence he was not called for
interview.

4. The Tribunal has clearly erred
in doing so. Note 21 to the advertisement
expressly provides that if a large number of
applications are received the Commission
may shortlist candidates for interview on
the basis of higher qualifications although
all applicants may possess the requisite
minimum qualifications. In the case of M.P.
Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit
Kumar Potdar this Court has upheld
shortlisting of candidates on some rational
and reasonable basis. In that case, for the
purpose of shortlisting, a longer period of
experience than the minimum prescribed
was used as a criterion by the Public
Service Commission for calling candidates
for an interview. This was upheld by this
Court. In the case of Govt. of A.P. Vs. P.
Dilip Kumar also this Court said that it is
always open to the recruiting agency to
screen candidates due for consideration at
the threshold of the process of selection by
prescribing higher eligibility qualification
so that the field of selection can be
narrowed down with the ultimate objective
of promoting candidates with higher
qualifications
to
enter
the
zone
of
consideration. The procedure, therefore,
adopted in the present case by the
Commission was legitimate. The decision
of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and
the appeal is allowed. There will, however,
be no order as to costs."

22. More so, the interpretation so
sought to be suggested by the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner that it is not
permissible for the respondents to have
changed the rules of the game once the
game has commenced is preposterous as
the said principle is not applicable in the
cases of shortlisting. Nonetheless, nothing
has been brought on record to substantiate
that even otherwise the criteria adopted for
shortlisting is arbitrary or illegal or not
backed by any provision. Insofar as the
judgment in the case of K. Manjusree
(supra) and K. S. Govindan Nair (supra)
are not applicable in the facts of the case.

23. Resultantly, this Court does not
find any good ground to interfere with the
communications/orders impugned.

24. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 17720 of 2023

Adarsh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amitabh Patel, Sri Raj Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - UP Qualifying Service for
Pension Validation Act, 2021 - Prem
Singh's decision - Overruling the decision
through the legislation - Competence of
legislature - Held, once the highest Court