# Ram Sufal Saroj v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 364
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-13
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sufal-saroj-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40859
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri B.N. Singh
Sri H.R.S. Bist
Sri A.K. Misra
Sri R.K. Misra
Sri K.C. Sinha

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
law-Right
to
Appointment-Posts
of
Stenographer
advertised
by
Rajput
Regimental
Centre-essential
Qualification prescribed as matriculation
with short hand speed of 150 words per
minute-petitioner qualified the written
test and placed at serial no. 2 in merit
list-appointment denied on the groundpetitioner possessed two years course
certificate-held-it was neither essential
nor
preferential
qualification-non
production of additional qualification by
the last date-could not be ground to
deny the appointment.

Held: Para 8

The requirement of valid certificate from
technical
education
Board/University
was neither prescribed in the rules nor in
the advertisement. The authority issuing
call letters for written test and interview
was not competent authority to lay down
the essential qualification for the post.
The petitioner was fully qualified and
had attained the required speed in short
hand and typing. She had secured
second position in the merit list. The fact
that she possessed only first year mark
sheet in diploma in Office Management
and
Secretarial
Practice
from
Government
Girls
Polytechnic,
Gorakhpur was not of any consequence
as
this
was
neither
essential
qualification
nor
preferential
qualification for appointment to the post.
When a candidate holds the minimum
qualification provided in the rules and in
the advertisement the fact that she could
not
produce
the
certificate
of
the
additional qualification by the last date
provided by the appointment authority
could
not
be
a
ground
to
deny
appointment to her. The affidavit of the
petitioner accompanying the application
dated 13.11.2002, discloses that she has
completed two years Diploma Course
and her result was available on the
Internet
before
29.6.2002
and
she
expected to be issued the certificate in
the first week of August, 2002. She in
fact received the certificate of the two
years course on 1.8.2002 and the mark
sheet on 13.8.2002 which has been
brought on record. The respondents,
however, di

## Text

364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006

9. The next illustration cited by the
petitioner was that of class III employees
of Junior High Schools and to which the
attention of the Court was invited,
wherein it is stated that the benefit of
extension of services to the age of 60
years will also include the benefit of
payment of gratuity to the class III
employees of Junior High Schools. Again
at this juncture, it would be useful to
reiterate that class III employees of Junior
High Schools are governed by a different
set of Rules. Their employment and terms
and conditions of service are not similar
to that of the petitioner whose services are
governed under the provisions of U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act
and
Regulations
framed
therein.
It
is
something
different
that
both
the
petitioner and the employees of Junior
High School are performing the job of a
clerk, but by mere performance of duties
which the petitioner claims to be of a
similar nature, would not by itself be the
basis of a legitimate expectation to claim
similar benefits. Legitimate expectation is
to be grounded on the basis of some
existing rights or on the basis of some
lawful legitimate undertaking given by
the employer. In the instant case, the State
Government has neither framed any Rules
nor has it extended any such benefits or
given an undertaking to the petitioner or
such similarly situated employees on the
basis whereof the petitioner can claim any
legitimate expectation. The contention on
behalf of the petitioner that legitimate
expectation arises out of the benefits
being given to employees of Junior High
School cannot be accepted. As already
noticed herein above, they are employees
governed by a different set of Rules. The
Rules by which the employees of a Junior
High School are governed cannot be
deployed for any support in order to
extend the benefit of gratuity to the
petitioner.

10. The matter of payment of
gratuity involves a policy decision to be
taken by the State Government which
entails fiscal burden, such matters should
not be ordinarily tinkered with by the
Courts inasmuch as the question of
payment to be made out of State funds
and exchequer have to be determined on
the basis of deliberations to be made by
the State Government in order to ensure
any such benefit as claimed by the
petitioner. In the instant case, there is
nothing on record to indicate that the
petitioner or such similarly situated
employees had raised any such claim of
extension of benefit of gratuity on the
basis of the logic which the petitioner
contends is applicable in the present case
and contained in the decision dated
25.8.2005. It appears that the petitioner
and such other employees, who failed to
get their requests accepted by the State
Government with regard to enhancement
in the age of superannuation have come
up before this Court straightway for a
mandamus
calling
upon
the
State
Government to extend the benefit of
gratuity. As already noticed herein above,
the petitioner has failed to make out any
case of discrimination or arbitrariness so
as to attract the applicability of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. In view of the
observations made herein above, this
Court does not find any cause for any
interference, much less for grant of any
relief as claimed by the petitioner.

11. The writ petition, accordingly,
lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
1 All] Ram Sufal Saroj V. State of U.P. and another
365
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30291 of 2002

Rajani Pandey

...Petitioner
Versus
The Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi
and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri Sanjai Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh
Sri H.R.S. Bist
Sri A.K. Misra
Sri R.K. Misra
Sri K.C. Sinha

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
law-Right
to
Appointment-Posts
of
Stenographer
advertised
by
Rajput
Regimental
Centre-essential
Qualification prescribed as matriculation
with short hand speed of 150 words per
minute-petitioner qualified the written
test and placed at serial no. 2 in merit
list-appointment denied on the groundpetitioner possessed two years course
certificate-held-it was neither essential
nor
preferential
qualification-non
production of additional qualification by
the last date-could not be ground to
deny the appointment.

Held: Para 8

The requirement of valid certificate from
technical
education
Board/University
was neither prescribed in the rules nor in
the advertisement. The authority issuing
call letters for written test and interview
was not competent authority to lay down
the essential qualification for the post.
The petitioner was fully qualified and
had attained the required speed in short
hand and typing. She had secured
second position in the merit list. The fact
that she possessed only first year mark
sheet in diploma in Office Management
and
Secretarial
Practice
from
Government
Girls
Polytechnic,
Gorakhpur was not of any consequence
as
this
was
neither
essential
qualification
nor
preferential
qualification for appointment to the post.
When a candidate holds the minimum
qualification provided in the rules and in
the advertisement the fact that she could
not
produce
the
certificate
of
the
additional qualification by the last date
provided by the appointment authority
could
not
be
a
ground
to
deny
appointment to her. The affidavit of the
petitioner accompanying the application
dated 13.11.2002, discloses that she has
completed two years Diploma Course
and her result was available on the
Internet
before
29.6.2002
and
she
expected to be issued the certificate in
the first week of August, 2002. She in
fact received the certificate of the two
years course on 1.8.2002 and the mark
sheet on 13.8.2002 which has been
brought on record. The respondents,
however, did not accept the certificate as
the post was sanctioned to be filled up
only upto 30.6.2002. In my opinion the
petitioner was treated arbitrarily in
rejecting her candidate and refusing her
request to produce the certificate, the
result of which was available on the
Internet. Even otherwise this certificate
of
the
course
pursued
by
her
as
additional qualification was not essential
for appointment. She had passed the test
and
was
declared
selected.
She,
therefore,
could
not
be
refused
appointment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjai Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
H.R.S. Bist for respondents 1, 2 and 3. Sri
A.K. Misra appears for respondent no. 4
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
and 5. He had put appearance in the year
2002 but has not filed any counter
affidavit. His request for adjournment was
not accepted.

2. The petitioner was an applicant
for the two posts of stenographers
advertised by Rajput Regimental Centre,
Fatehgarh along with other posts. The
publication declared the posts to be in the
pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-; the age of
the candidate to be between 18-25 years
and qualifications to be matriculate with
shorthand speed of 150 word per minute,
and typing speed of 40 word per minute
(English). The note appended to the
advertisement required applications along
with testimonials to reach the Quarter
Master,
Rajput
Regimental
Centre,
Fatehgarh, U.P. by 15.2.2002. The
petitioner had passed Secondary School
Examination in the year 1994 from
Central Board of Secondary Education
and had passed the first year of the two
year Diploma course in Modern Office
Management and Secretarial Practice vide
certificate dated 2.8.2001. She applied
and was selected and placed at serial no. 2
in the select list. By letter dated 17.6.2002
she was sent a medical certificate form
and was informed by Lt. Col. of
Officiating
Quarter
Master
for
Commandant that her police verification
papers have been forwarded to the
Superintendent
of
Police,
District
Ghazipur and that her appointment will be
considered subject to production of
Technical Diploma Certificate (short
hand) by 29.6.2002.

3. The petitioner by her letter dated
20.6.2002 made a representation to Chief
of Army Staff, Army Headquarters, New
Delhi stating that the advertisement
provided
the
qualifications
to
be
matriculate with requisite speed of short
hand and typing. The concerned officer
has raised a doubt on his first year
Diploma
Certificate
issued
by
Government
Girls,
Polytechnic,
Gorakhpur.
Inspite
of
medical
examination
and
police
verification
completed on 26.6.2002, she was not
considered
for
appointment.
She
requested that since she will complete the
maximum age of 25 years of age on
11.8.2002, the appointment letter be
issued to her.

4. By this writ petition, she has
prayed for a writ of certiorari calling for
the record and quashing the letter/order
dated 17.6.2002 requiring her to produce
two years diploma certificate and for a
direction to decide her representation. By
an amendment vide order dated 2.1.2003,
she has prayed for quashing the whole
selection/appointments made in pursuance
of advertisement dated 9.2.2002 and to
direct the respondent no. 2 to appoint
petitioner on the post of Stenographer in
Rajput Regimental Centre, Fatehgarh.

5. In the counter affidavit, it is stated
that two posts of stenographers were
authorised in the peace establishment of
the
centre
on
31.7.1997,
but
no
stenographers were posted. The Army
Headquarters gave sanction for direct
recruitment of two stenographers vide
letter dated 26.6.2001 with validity of six
months only. On receipt of no objection
certificate from Department of Personnel
and Training, DGI and Ministry of
Labour, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi,
the vacancies were notified to District
Employment Exchange vide letter dated
24.9.2001. The required number of
candidates did not respond. The vacancies
were, therefore, again notified in local
1 All] Rajani V. The Chief of the Army Staff, Army Head Quarter and others
367
news paper ''Dainik Jagran' on 5.12.2001.
Once again the required number of
candidates did not apply and thus the
Army Headquarters was approached to
extend the validity of sanction. The
validity was extended till 31.3.2002. Once
again since required number of candidates
were not available and thus on a request
the validity was again extended and the
posts were advertised. A total number of
60 candidates applied for the post of
stenographer Group III and were issued
call letters to report to Rejput Regimental
Centre on 9.3.2002 for written test and
interview.
The
technical
educational
certificate were required to be produced
by the candidates. Sri Ravindra Singh
Rathor and Rajni Pandey (petitioner) and
Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh in the order to
merit passed the written test and interview
and were called vide call letter for final
scrutiny of documents on 15.5.2002. The
petitioner was found to possess first year
diploma of two years diploma course on
Modern
Office
Management
and
Secretarial Practice from Government
Mahila Polytechnic, Gorakhpur. She had
not completed the course, and could not
produce
the
certificate
of technical
qualification
from
the
qualifications
testing
board.
The
office had
not
instructed the candidates to produce two
years Diploma Certificate. She was asked
to produce valid technical qualification,
short hand (English) and Type writing
(English) certificate issued by the Board
of Technical Education. The Army
Headquarters had extended the validity of
sanction for recruitment on 30.6.2002.
The petitioner could not produce the valid
certificate by 29.6.2002 and thus the
results were announced and her name
were struck out of the merit list and the
next reserved candidates was considered
for appointments.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that there was no requirement of
any technical educational qualification for
the post to be certified by any technical
education board. The Recruitment Rules
for Stenographers Group III issued by
Adjutant, General Branch at CRG-4 (CIB)
(a) do not provide for any technical
qualification. The recruitment rules issued
on 12.1.1994 provide the educational and
other qualifications required for direct
recruitment,
to
be
matriculate
or
equivalent and that the candidate must
possess a speed of 80 word per minute
either in English or in Hindi to be
translated and typed within the time
prescribed for the purpose. The petitioner
had completed the second year course and
the certificate was issued to her only a
few days later than 30.6.2002. Her name,
however, was arbitrarily struck off from
the select list and the next person was
given appointment. It is contended that
where a technical qualification is not
necessary, the insistence to produce the
second year certificate was illegal and
arbitrary and was made only to favour the
reserve candidate. Lastly it is contended
that the sanction of the post to fill up the
post was extended on 30.6.2002 could not
be a ground to reject the candidature of a
selected candidate awaiting appointment
orders.

7. After hearing parties and perusing
the relevant rules including the general
guidelines/procedural formalities to be
followed for filling up Group C & D
vacancies through direct recruitment, I
find that a technical certificate issued by
technical education board was not the
essential qualification for appointment.
The Rules and guidelines for recruitment
as well as the advertisement did not
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
provide for possessing any such technical
qualification. The qualification announced
as essential for the post of stenographers
was matriculate with short hand speed of
100 per minute (English) and typing
speed of 40 word per minute (English). In
the supplementary counter affidavit of Lt.
Col. M.S. Raju, Quarter Master for
Commandant, Rajput Regimental Central,
Fatehgarh, it is clearly stated in paragraph
5 that the requisite qualifications were not
amended and no corrigendum was issued.
The requirement of valid certificate from
technical education board/universities was
insisted only in the call letter issued for
written
test
and
interview
dated
26.2.2002. The petitioner was required to
submit
the
original
certificates
by
29.6.2002.
She
was
thus
illegally
disqualified.

8. The requirement of valid
certificate
from
technical
education
Board/University was neither prescribed
in the rules nor in the advertisement. The
authority issuing call letters for written
test and interview was not competent
authority to lay down the essential
qualification for the post. The petitioner
was fully qualified and had attained the
required speed in short hand and typing.
She had secured second position in the
merit list. The fact that she possessed only
first year mark sheet in diploma in Office
Management and Secretarial Practice
from
Government
Girls Polytechnic,
Gorakhpur was not of any consequence as
this was neither essential qualification nor
preferential qualification for appointment
to the post. When a candidate holds the
minimum qualification provided in the
rules and in the advertisement the fact that
she could not produce the certificate of
the additional qualification by the last
date
provided
by
the
appointment
authority could not be a ground to deny
appointment to her. The affidavit of the
petitioner accompanying the application
dated 13.11.2002, discloses that she has
completed two years Diploma Course and
her result was available on the Internet
before 29.6.2002 and she expected to be
issued the certificate in the first week of
August, 2002. She in fact received the
certificate of the two years course on
1.8.2002 and the mark sheet on 13.8.2002
which has been brought on record. The
respondents, however, did not accept the
certificate as the post was sanctioned to
be filled up only upto 30.6.2002. In my
opinion
the
petitioner
was
treated
arbitrarily in rejecting her candidate and
refusing her request to produce the
certificate, the result of which was
available on the Internet. Even otherwise
this certificate of the course pursued by
her as additional qualification was not
essential for appointment. She had passed
the test and was declared selected. She,
therefore,
could
not
be
refused
appointment.

9. The writ petition is allowed. The
order of appointment of Sri Jitendra
Kumar, respondent no. 4 placed at third in
the merit list is set aside. The petitioner
shall be given appointment without any
delay with seniority with effect from the
date she was entitled to be appointed if
her candidature was not struck out.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19348 of 2003

Ram Narain Tripathi

...Petitioner