# Ram Kumar S/O Mani Ram v. State Of U.P. & Anr. 662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 661
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-13
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6528 of 2009
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kumar-s-o-mani-ram-v-state-of-u-p-anr-662-indian-law-reports-allahabad-53745
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether denial of appointment to the petitioner,
suffering from 40% locomotor disability, on the
ground that the post of Safai Karmi was
identified only for Partially Deaf and Dumb
persons and not for locomotor disability, is
legally sustainable under Sections 32 and 33 of
the
Persons
with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Reservation for Persons with
Disabilities - Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 -
Identification of Posts - Locomotor Disability -
Government Order dated 07.05.1999 - Validity
- Appointment as Safai Karmi - Entitlement.
Held:
As per Section 32 of the Act, 1995, there has
to be an identification of posts by the
appropriate
Government
which
can
be
reserved for persons with disabilities. As per
Section 33 of the Act, 1995, every appropriate
Government is to appoint such percentage of
vacancies not less than three per cent for
persons or class of persons with disability, of
which one per cent each shall be reserved for
persons suffering from blindness or low
vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor
disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts
identified for each disability. In light of
Section 32 of the Act, 1995, a Government
Order dated 07.05.1999 was issued by which
various posts had been identified for the
purpose of being reserved. The post of
Sweeper, for which the petitioner had applied,
was reserved only for PDD/DD, i.e. partially
deaf
and
dumb/deaf
and
dumb;
no
reservation was provided for a person with
locomotor disability. Once the post in terms of
Section 32 of the Act, 1995, was never
identified
for
a
person
with
locomotor
disability, the petitioner has not been given
the benefit of reservation for locomotor
disability; consequently, no error can be
found in the said action on the part of the
respondents. The Government cannot be
compelled to fill in all the vacancies which it is
having, and as such, the Court cannot issue a
mandamus to the respondents for filling in
the
remaining
vacancies.
Writ
petition
dismissed. (Paras 15-23) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Dileep Kumar Sen and 8 others v. State of U.P.
and 2 others, 2023:AHC-LKO:65595 ; State of
Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha and
others, (1974) 3 SCC 220 (21)

List of Acts
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995

List of Keywords
Service
Law;
Reservation;
Physically
Handicapped;
Locomotor
Disability;
Identification of Posts; Government Order dated
07.05.1999; Safai Karmi;

CASE ARISING FROM
Order
dated
24.04.2009
rejecting
the
petitioner's representation for appointment as
Safai Karmi under the physically handicapped
quota.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, Sri
Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Sri Dinesh Kumar Soni,
Sri G.K. Pandey, Sri Kapil Dev Chaubey, Sri
Pradeep Kumar Kovid, Sri R.R. Pandey, Sri Raj
Srivastava, Sri Satya Prakash, Sri Vijai Kumar
Shukla.

Advs For Respondents: Standing Counsel
(C.S.C.).

## Text

8 All. Ram Kumar S/O Mani Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
661
to him, it was only 25%, however, such dispute
would not have any material effect, since
admittedly
final
construction
work
was
undertaken during petitioner's tenure and he
had
opportunity
to
check
standard
of
construction, however, he failed to do so.

24. Now the issue is who is the
Appropriate Authority to grant sanction to
initiate proceedings under Section 351 (a) of
CCS Rules. Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam has
issued an Office Memo dated 3.2.2003,
whereby a decision taken by Board of
Directors, U.P.Jal Nigam in its 138th meeting
dated 22.1.2003 was communicated, whereby
provision of U.P. Government Service Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 were
adopted with an amendment that word
'Governor' or 'State Government' be read as
'Nigam/Board of Directors'. For reference,
Office Memo dated 3.2.2003 is reproduced
hereinafter:

"कायाटलय- ज्ञाप

उत्तर प्रदेश जल लनगम की लनदेशक मंडल की 138वीं
बैठक लदनांक 22-1-2003 के मद संख्या 138.08 पर रखे गये
प्रस्ताव का अनुमोदन लनदेशक मंडल द्वारा लकया गया। तदनुसार उ०प्र०जल
लनगम में कायटरत लोक कलमटयों पर, शासन की अलिसूचना संख्या
13/9/98-का-1-99 लदनांक 9 जून-1999 द्वारा जारी, "उत्तर प्रदेश
सरकारी सेवक (अनुशासन एवं अपील) लनयमावली-1999" को
लनम्नलललखत संशोिन के साथ लागू माना पायेगा :-

1- उपरोक्त लनयमावली में जहााँ कहीं शब्द राज्यपाल या
राज्य सरकार प्रयुक्त हुआ है, वहााँ शब्द "लनगम लनदेशक मंडल"
प्रलतस्थालपत हुआ माना जायेगा। तदनुसार उपरोक्त लनयमावली में
महामलहम राज्यपाल या राज्य सरकार को प्राि शलक्तयों का प्रयोग,
उ०प्र०जल लनगम के लोक कलमटयों के प्रकरण में "लनगम लनदेशक मंडल"
द्वारा लकया जायेगा।

2- इस कायाटलय के ज्ञाप संख्या 1845/प्र1/ज०लन०अनु०/35/137/2002, लदनांक 13-11-2002 के द्वारा
जारी आदेश के अनुसार उ०प्र०सरकारी सेवक (अनुशासन एवं अपील)
लनयमावली-1999 के लनयम-13, 14 एवं 15 का प्रयोग करते समय, लनयम16 में प्रालविालनत लनयम के पालन करने की आवश्यकता नहीं होगी।"

25. Aforesaid Office Memo dated
3.2.2003 still hold's good and it has never
interfered, therefore, a doubt created in 7th
meeting of Board of Directors has no legal
value, since, above referred decision dated
22.12.2003 is completely applicable upon
respondents also.

26. Otherwise also, later on a legal opinion
was also communicated and till date no contrary
decision is taken by Board of Directors.

27. The Office Memo dated 28.8.2024 of
the respondents also grants permission to take
ex-post facto permission or decision to initiate
proceedings under above referred Rules from
Board of Directors preferably in its next
meeting, which was accordingly placed and
legal impediment was also removed.

28. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is
no legal error in initiating proceedings against
the petitioner after retirement since Board of
Directors decision was duly taken under
aforesaid provisions.

29. Writ Petition being sans merit, is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 661
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 6528 of 2009

Ram Kumar S/O Mani Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay Pratap Singh, Arvind Kumar Tripathi,
Dinesh Kumar Soni, G.K. Pandey, Kapil Dev
Chaubey, Pradeep Kumar Kovid, R.R.
Pandey, Raj Srivastava, Satya Prakash,
Vijai Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether denial of appointment to the petitioner,
suffering from 40% locomotor disability, on the
ground that the post of Safai Karmi was
identified only for Partially Deaf and Dumb
persons and not for locomotor disability, is
legally sustainable under Sections 32 and 33 of
the
Persons
with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Reservation for Persons with
Disabilities - Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 -
Identification of Posts - Locomotor Disability -
Government Order dated 07.05.1999 - Validity
- Appointment as Safai Karmi - Entitlement.
Held:
As per Section 32 of the Act, 1995, there has
to be an identification of posts by the
appropriate
Government
which
can
be
reserved for persons with disabilities. As per
Section 33 of the Act, 1995, every appropriate
Government is to appoint such percentage of
vacancies not less than three per cent for
persons or class of persons with disability, of
which one per cent each shall be reserved for
persons suffering from blindness or low
vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor
disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts
identified for each disability. In light of
Section 32 of the Act, 1995, a Government
Order dated 07.05.1999 was issued by which
various posts had been identified for the
purpose of being reserved. The post of
Sweeper, for which the petitioner had applied,
was reserved only for PDD/DD, i.e. partially
deaf
and
dumb/deaf
and
dumb;
no
reservation was provided for a person with
locomotor disability. Once the post in terms of
Section 32 of the Act, 1995, was never
identified
for
a
person
with
locomotor
disability, the petitioner has not been given
the benefit of reservation for locomotor
disability; consequently, no error can be
found in the said action on the part of the
respondents. The Government cannot be
compelled to fill in all the vacancies which it is
having, and as such, the Court cannot issue a
mandamus to the respondents for filling in
the
remaining
vacancies.
Writ
petition
dismissed. (Paras 15-23) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Dileep Kumar Sen and 8 others v. State of U.P.
and 2 others, 2023:AHC-LKO:65595 ; State of
Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha and
others, (1974) 3 SCC 220 (21)

List of Acts
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995

List of Keywords
Service
Law;
Reservation;
Physically
Handicapped;
Locomotor
Disability;
Identification of Posts; Government Order dated
07.05.1999; Safai Karmi;

CASE ARISING FROM
Order
dated
24.04.2009
rejecting
the
petitioner's representation for appointment as
Safai Karmi under the physically handicapped
quota.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, Sri
Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Sri Dinesh Kumar Soni,
Sri G.K. Pandey, Sri Kapil Dev Chaubey, Sri
Pradeep Kumar Kovid, Sri R.R. Pandey, Sri Raj
Srivastava, Sri Satya Prakash, Sri Vijai Kumar
Shukla.

Advs For Respondents: Standing Counsel
(C.S.C.).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today
in Court by the learned Standing Counsel is
taken on record.
8 All. Ram Kumar S/O Mani Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
663

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that he does not intend to file any
objection to the aforesaid affidavit and
prays that the matter may be heard finally.

3. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to
hear and decide the matter finally.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents.

5. The facts of the case have already
been noted in detail in the order dated
23.07.2025. For the sake of convenience,
the relevant extract of the order dated
23.07.2025 is reproduced below:-

"1. Heard.

2. The facts of the case have
already been noted in detail in the order
dated 09.05.2025 which, for the sake of
convenience, is reproduced below:-

"1. At the very outset, learned
counsel for the petitioner states that earlier
he
had
moved
an
application
for
impleadment of Sri Ramesh Chandra
Balmiki, which was allowed and he was
impleaded as respondent no.3 in the array
of parties. Now he does not want to press
on the writ petition against respondent no.3
and prays that respondent no.3 be deleted
from the array of parties.

2. To the aforesaid prayer,
learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

3. Accordingly, let the respondent
no.3 be deleted from the array of parties
within a week.

4. Heard.

5. The matter has been listed
before this Court after nomination by
Hon'ble Chief Justice.

6. Under challenge is the order
dated 24.04.2009, a copy of which is
Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the
representation
of
the
petitioner
for
appointment as Safai Karmi has been
rejected.

7. The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that an
advertisement dated 28.06.2008, a copy of
which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition,
was issued by respondent no.2 inviting
applications for various vacancies. The
controversy revolves around 499 vacancies
for Other Backward Class (OBC).

8. The petitioner, an OBC,
applied
in
pursuance
to
the
said
advertisement and claims to have been
allotted Roll No.1330 as appears from the
interview letter, a copy of which is
Annexure-6 to the petition.

9. It is contended that the
interview took place on 12.09.2008 yet
when the respondents declared the result
against his roll number one Sri Ramesh
Chandra Balmik was indicated to have
been selected.

10.
Being
aggrieved,
the
petitioner approached this Court and this
Court required the respondents to decide
the representation of the petitioner in Writ
Petition
No.8095
(SS)
of
2008.
In
pursuance thereof, the petitioner claims to
have submitted his representation which
has been rejected vide the order impugned
dated 24.04.2009 and hence the petition.
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that apart from
the fact the petitioner is an OBC and is also
a physically handicapped as per the
handicap certificate issued by the Chief
Medical
Officer
which
indicates
his
permanent disability as 40%, copy of which
has been filed as Annexure-4 to the
petition, and as per the averments made in
paragraph 6 of the supplementary counter
affidavit dated 20.05.2015 it emerges that
the respondents admit of having only filled
in 494 posts of OBC vis-a-vis 499 posts
that were advertised and have also
indicated that the remaining vacancies
against OBC are vacant due to nonavailability of the applications for the post
in question as the same belonged to
deaf/partially deaf (PD/D) as such it is
apparent
that
sufficient
number
of
vacancies
were
available
with
the
respondents on which the petitioner could
have been appointed in his own category.

12. Learned Standing Counsel
has however expressed his inability to
address the Court on merits on account of
not having the records.

13. Although in the counter
affidavit it clearly emerges that the
respondents in fact admit of having filled in
only 494 vacancies out of 499 vacancies
towards OBC that had been advertised and
have
indicated
that
the
remaining
vacancies i.e. 5 are vacant due to nonavailability of deaf/partially deaf persons
but it is not clear that as to whether a
physically handicapped quota could be
further
divided
into
one
towards
deaf/partially deaf candidates leaving out
another physically handicapped person, as
in the instant case, i.e. the petitioner who is
also 40% physically handicapped.

14. The other aspect of the matter
would be that it is not understood as to how
the same roll numbers, in this case roll
no.1330, could be allotted against various
categories namely SC & OBC as has been
done in the instant case which might be the
case with respect to the other categories
also.

15. Let learned Standing Counsel
seek specific instructions in this regard and
also equip himself with his own record.

16. As the matter pertains to the
year 2009, list this case in the next week.

17. The matter may not be
adjourned on the next date of listing."

3. Thereafter, when the matter
was taken up on 04.07.2025 the Court had
required learned Standing Counsel to bring
on record the Government Order dated
07.05.1999 and also file supplementary
affidavit indicating therein as to how
compliance of Section 33 of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection
of
Rights
and
Full
Participation) Act, 1995 has been done
with respect to reserving of one percent
vacancy for the persons suffering from (i)
blindness or low vision (ii) hearing
impairment, and (iii) locomotor disability
or cerebral palsy.

4. Responding Sri Piyush Kumar,
learned Standing Counsel, indicates that in
terms of Section 32 of the Act, 1995,
Government Order dated 07.05.1999 had
been issued, a copy of which is Annexure CA-1
to the counter affidavit dated 16.08.2011,
which indicates at serial no.10 with respect to
Group D posts of Sweeper, Cleaner and
Related workers in the category of PDD.
8 All. Ram Kumar S/O Mani Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
665

5. Referring to the letter dated
24.04.2009, which is part of Annexure CA1 to the counter affidavit, learned Standing
Counsel states that PDD has been
indicated so far as it pertains to Safai
Karmi as partially deaf and dumb/deaf and
dumb and as the petitioner is suffering from
40% locomotor disability consequently as
the post of Sweeper, Cleaner and Related
Workers has not been identified for the
locomotor disability persons as such the
petitioner is not entitled for benefit of any
reservation.

6. So far as the petitioner not
being considered against OBC category,
learned Standing Counsel states that as per
the averments made in supplementary
counter affidavit dated 22.05.2025 the
marks obtained by the petitioner are 23.25
and he has thus not qualified in the OBC
category."

6. The Court vide order dated
23.07.2025 had also required learned
Standing Counsel to file a supplementary
affidavit duly bringing on record the
Government
Order
dated
20.09.1997
(wrongly typed as 20.09.1977 in the order
dated 23.07.2025) as was indicated in the
advertisement.

7.
In
pursuance
thereof,
the
Government order dated 20.09.1997 has
been brought on record.

8. From perusal of the detailed order
23.07.2025
it
emerges
that
an
advertisement had been issued by the
respondents dated 28.06.2008 inviting
applications
for
various
vacancies.
Controversy revolves around 499 vacancies
for Other Backward Class (OBC). The
petitioner claims that his result was
declared yet he has not been appointed
although sufficient number of vacancies are
available. The representation filed by the
petitioner for his appointment has been
rejected by the respondents vide order
impugned dated 24.04.2009 by indicating
that the post of Safai Karmi has not been
identified against locomotor disability with
which the petitioner is suffering rather the
said post has been identified towards PD/D
i.e. partially deaf and dumb/deaf and dumb.

9. While raising a challenge to the
order impugned dated 24.04.2009 learned
counsel for the petitioner has raised the
following arguments namely (a) that the
Government Order dated 07.05.1999 as has
been brought on record and as has been
indicated in the advertisement cannot and
will not supersede the provisions of the
Persons
with
Disabilities
(Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act, 1955') which Act
was prevailing at the time of advertisement,
(b) there is no clarification with regard to
the marks of the petitioner, (c) sufficient
number of vacancies are still available on
which the petitioner can be appointed, and
(d) once in terms of Section 33 of the Act,
1995, one per cent quota is also available to
a
person
with
locomotor
disability,
consequently the respondents, while issuing
the Government Order dated 07.05.1999
could not have taken away that quota of
one per cent meant for a person with
locomotor disability. In this regard, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in
the case of Dileep Kumar Sen and 8 others
vs. State of U.P. and 2 others - 2023:
AHC-LKO:65595.

10. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel has contended that
Section 32 of the Act, 1995, clearly
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provides for identification of posts which
can
be
reserved
for
persons
with
disabilities. Identification has been done
with the issuance of the Government Order
dated 07.05.1999 per which the post of
Sweeper, Cleaner and related workers i.e.
Sweeper Dry, Sweeper Wet, Sweeper
Sewer and Sweeper Cleaner and Related
Workers have only been reserved for
PDD/DD i.e. persons with partially deaf
and dumb/deaf and dumb disability.

11. Placing reliance on the provisions
of Section 33 of the Act, 1995, the
argument of learned Standing Counsel is
that said section itself provides that the
reservation is to be done for persons suffering
from (a) blindness or low vision, (b)hearing
impairment, and (c) locomotor disability or
cerebral palsy in the posts identified for such
disability and therefore once the identification
of the posts has been done by means of
Government Order dated 07.05.1999 and the
State is fully empowered to do so under the
provisions of Section 32 of the Act, 1995
consequently it cannot be said that any error
has been occasioned in non-appointment of
the petitioner once no post has been reserved
for the post of Sweeper for the disability with
which the petitioner is affected.

12. Heard learned counsels for the
parties and perused the records.

13. From perusal of record, it emerges
that the respondents have not appointed the
petitioner against the one per cent reserved
quota
for
the
physically
handicapped/locomotor disability.

14. Sections 32 and 33 of the Act,
1995 read as under:-

"32. Identification of posts
which can be reserved for persons with
disabilities. - Appropriate Governments
shall -

(a.)
identify
posts,
in
the
establishments, which can be reserved for
the persons with disability;

(b.) at periodical intervals not
exceeding three years, review the list of
posts identified and up-date the list
taking
into
consideration
the
developments in technology.

33. Reservation of Posts - Every
appropriate Government shall appoint in
every establishment such percentage of
vacancies not less than three per cent. for
persons
or
class
of
persons
with
disability of which one per cent. each
shall be reserved for persons suffering
from-

i. blindness or low vision;

ii. hearing impairment;

iii.
locomotor
disability
or
cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for
each disability:

Provided that the appropriate
Government may, having regard to the
type
of
work
carried
on
in
any
department
or
establishment,
by
notification subject to such conditions, if
any, as may be specified in such
notification, exempt any establishment
from the provisions of this section."

15. From perusal of Section 32 of the
Act, 1995 it emerges that there is to be an
identification of posts which can be
reserved for persons with disabilities and
that the appropriate Government is to
identify the posts in the establishment
8 All. Ram Kumar S/O Mani Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
667
which can be reserved for persons with
disability.

16. From perusal of Section 33 of the
Act, 1995 it emerges that every appropriate
Government is to appoint in every
establishment such percentage of vacancies
not less than three per cent for persons or
class of persons with disability of which
one per cent each shall be reserved for
persons suffering from blindness or low
vision, hearing impairment, and locomotor
disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts
identified for each disability.

17. Section 2(a)(ii) of the Act, 1995
provides that the appropriate Government
would be the State Government.

18. In terms of the power as vested in
the State Government in light of Section 32
of the Act, 1995 a Government Order dated
07.05.1999 was issued by which various
posts had been identified for the purpose of
being reserved. So far as the post of the
petitioner is concerned, which is a post of
Sweeper, for which the petitioner had
applied, the reservation was only provided
for PDD/DD i.e. partially deaf and
dumb/deaf and dumb i.e. no reservation
was provided for a person with locomotor
disability. Accordingly, once identification
of the posts has been done in terms of
Section 32 of the Act, 1995 with the
issuance of the Government Order dated
07.05.1999 consequently Section 33 of the
Act, 1995 would have to be read in
accordance with the identification of posts
reserved for persons with disability which
has been made in terms of Section 32 of the
Act, 1995 inasmuch as Section 33 of the
Act, 1995 specifically provides that the
Government
shall
appoint
in
every
establishment such percentage of vacancies
not less than three per cent on the posts
identified
for
each
disability.
Consequently once the post in terms of
Section 32 of the Act, 1995 was never
identified for a person with locomotor
disability as clearly emerges from perusal
of the Government Order dated 07.05.1999,
as such in case the petitioner has not been
given the benefit of reservation for
locomotor disability, consequently no error
can be found in the said action on the part
of the respondents as also emerges from
perusal of the order dated 24.04.2009 per
which representation of the petitioner has
been rejected.

19. So far as the judgment of this
Court in the case of Dileep Kumar Sen
(supra) is concerned, the said judgment
may not detain the Court inasmuch as here
it is not a case of a Government Order
being issued contrary to the provisions of
the Act, 1995 inasmuch as the Government
Order dated 07.05.1999 has clearly been
issued in terms of the powers vested with
the State Government under Section 32 of
the Act, 1995. Thus, the said judgment
would have no applicability in the facts of
the instant case.

20. So far as the argument of learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
no
clarification has been given by the
respondents pertaining to the marks of the
petitioner, no case has been set up by this
petitioner in this regard and thus the said
ground merits to be rejected and is rejected.

21. So far as the ground that vacancies
still exist in which the petitioner can be
accommodated, suffice to state that keeping
in view the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha
and others - (1974) 3 SCC 220, the
Government cannot be compelled to fill in
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
all the vacancies which it is having and as
such there cannot be any occasion for this
Court to issue a mandamus to the
respondents for filling in the remaining
vacancies.

22. At this stage, learned counsel for
the respondents has also produced the
marks as have been obtained by the
petitioner which are found to be 23.25 and
as the cut off which has been specified for
the OBC category is 23.75 as such it is
apparent that the petitioner has failed to
obtain even the cut off marks for being
selected against the advertised posts.

23. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 668
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 8383 of 2025

Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
Secy. / Examination Controller Lower
Subordinate Service Selection Commission
Lko & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Ankit Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Gaurav Mehrotra, C.S.C., Utsav Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Prevailing authority on the occurrence of
contradiction in the Hindi version and English
version of any provision?
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Recruitment - Post of
Cutting Swing - Candidature - Marks in
High
School
and
I.T.I.
Certificate
examination are to be considered - Clear
dichotomy occurred in English and Hindi
version of Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) - While
English version provided that 'Twenty
percent of the percentage of marks
secured in the Certificate Test shall be
given to each candidate, its Hindi version
provide that Twenty percent of marks
secured in the Certificate Test shall be
given to each candidate - Which would
prevail :
Held : Clause 3 of Article 348 of the
Constitution of India therefore clearly prescribes
an aspect that in case of any dichotomy
between the vernacular language and English
language, it is the English language which will
be considered to be authoritative - It would be
the English version of any Hindi translation of a
bill or order or service regulations which would
prevail. In such circumstances, twenty percent
of the percentage of marks secured in the
National
Trade
Certificate
Test/National
Apprenticeship Certificate Test would prevail.
[Paras 11 and 16] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Civil Appeal No. 6636 of 2002, Commissioner of
Trade Taxes v. Associated Distributors Limited;
Ram Surat Mishra v. State of UP and others,
Writ petition No. 8 (S/B) of 2010; Prabhat
Kumar
Sharma
v.
Union
Public
Service
Commission and others, (2006) 10 SCC 587;
Smt. Ram Rati and others v. Gram Samaj
Jehwa, through its Up-Pradhan, AIR 1974
Allahabad 106 (FB) - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 348; U.P.
Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak)
Sewa Niyamavali 2014 - Rule 16 (3)(Ka);
Official Language Act, 1951.

List of Keywords
Post of Cutting Swing; Candidature; Marks in
I.T.I. Certificate Examination; Percentage of
marks;

English
version;
Hindi
version;
Contradiction; Clear dichotomy; Proceeding of
Supreme Court; Proceeding of High Court; Nonobstante clause; President; Hindi language;