# Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad & Anr v. Devendra Pal Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 494
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-27
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 310 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/registrar-general-hon-ble-high-court-allahabad-anr-v-devendra-pal-singh-ors-48548
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Promotion - Allahabad
High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions
of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 -
Clause (ii) of Rule 8(a)(i) - The eligibility
of a candidate is to be reckoned on the
fixed
date
indicated
in
the
advertisement/notification
inviting
applications. In the absence of a date
fixed, the requisite eligibility is to be
judged on the last date for making the
applications
and
not
on
any
date
subsequent to that date. (Para 11)

The proposition that where applications are
called for prescribing a particular date as the
last date for filing the applications, the eligibility
of the candidates shall have to be judged with
reference to that date and that date alone, is a
well-established one. A person who acquires the
prescribed qualification subsequent to such
prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An
advertisement
or
notification
issued/published calling for applications
constitutes a representation to the public
and the authority issuing it is bound by
such
representation.
It
cannot
act
contrary to it. (Para 13)

In the present case, the learned Single
Judge erred in law in permitting the writ
petitioners/respondents who admittedly
did not possess the minimum educational
qualifications
as
prescribed
u/Rule
8(a)(i)(ii) of the Allahabad High Court
Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service
and Conduct) Rules, 1976 as it stood on the
date of the notice inviting applications to
appear in the examination and also declare
their
results.
Since
the
writ
petitioners/respondents have already appeared in
the examination held on 10.04.2022, we deem it
appropriate to modify the order of the learned
Single Judge by directing that the results of the
writ
petitioner/respondents
and
all
other
candidates who have been permitted to take the
examination dated 10.04.2022 pursuant to the
order of the learned Single Judge dated
08.04.2022 shall not be declared and shall abide
by the outcome of the writ petition. The results of
all other candidates may be declared by the High
Court, if it so desires, however, the results so
declared shall also abide by the outcome of the
writ petition. (Para 10, 14)

Special appeals disposed off. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)05ILR A494
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 310 of 2022
with
Special Appeal No. 296 of 2022

Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court,
Allahabad & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Chandan Sharma, Sri Samir Sharma (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shivendru Ojha, Sri R.K. Ojha
(Senior Advocate)

A. Service Law - Promotion - Allahabad
High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions
of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 -
Clause (ii) of Rule 8(a)(i) - The eligibility
of a candidate is to be reckoned on the
fixed
date
indicated
in
the
advertisement/notification
inviting
applications. In the absence of a date
fixed, the requisite eligibility is to be
judged on the last date for making the
applications
and
not
on
any
date
subsequent to that date. (Para 11)

The proposition that where applications are
called for prescribing a particular date as the
last date for filing the applications, the eligibility
of the candidates shall have to be judged with
reference to that date and that date alone, is a
well-established one. A person who acquires the
prescribed qualification subsequent to such
prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An
advertisement
or
notification
issued/published calling for applications
constitutes a representation to the public
and the authority issuing it is bound by
such
representation.
It
cannot
act
contrary to it. (Para 13)

In the present case, the learned Single
Judge erred in law in permitting the writ
petitioners/respondents who admittedly
did not possess the minimum educational
qualifications
as
prescribed
u/Rule
8(a)(i)(ii) of the Allahabad High Court
Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service
and Conduct) Rules, 1976 as it stood on the
date of the notice inviting applications to
appear in the examination and also declare
their
results.
Since
the
writ
petitioners/respondents have already appeared in
the examination held on 10.04.2022, we deem it
appropriate to modify the order of the learned
Single Judge by directing that the results of the
writ
petitioner/respondents
and
all
other
candidates who have been permitted to take the
examination dated 10.04.2022 pursuant to the
order of the learned Single Judge dated
08.04.2022 shall not be declared and shall abide
by the outcome of the writ petition. The results of
all other candidates may be declared by the High
Court, if it so desires, however, the results so
declared shall also abide by the outcome of the
writ petition. (Para 10, 14)

Special appeals disposed off. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) Vs University of
Rajasthan & ors., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 (Para
11)

2. Ashok Kumar Sharma & anr. Vs Chander
Shekher & anr., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 (Para
12)

3. Ashok Kumar Sharma & ors. Vs Chander
Shekher & anr., 1997 (4) SCC 18 (Para 13)

Present special appeal challenges the
judgment and order dated 08.04.2022,
passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ-A
No. 4533 of 2022.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,
J.
5 All. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. 495
&
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. These Intra Court Appeals have
been
filed
questioning
the
legality,
propriety and correctness of the order dated
08.04.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge
in
Writ-A
No.4533
of
2022
(Devendra Pal Singh and 16 others Vs.
State of U.P. and 2 others) whereby and
whereunder the prayer No. (iii) and (iv)
made in the writ petition have been allowed
qua the Petitioner Nos.4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 15, 16 & 17 and directions have been
issued permitting them to appear in the
examination after due verification of their
Course on Computer Concepts Certificate
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'CCC
Certificate'). The writ petition has been
dismissed qua the writ petitioners No. 1, 2,
3, 7, 13 & 14 with liberty to file a fresh writ
petition. The writ petition has been further
directed to be heard finally on the
following question framed:-

 "11. In view of this interim order,
the prayers no.(iii) and (iv) are allowed
and the matter will be heard finally on
following issues:-

"Whether
considering
that
addition of a new eligibility qualification
by way of amendment (in present case,
CCC Certificate), a course of minimum
three months in order to participate in a
competitive examination for Class IV
employees of the High Court for the posts
in the cadre of Computer Assistant,
requirement to posses all the qualifications
including the amended qualification before
the date of advertisement could be relaxed
up to the date of examination due to the
short time-line that amendment was carried
out on 13.3.2021, date of advertisement
was 28.9.2021 and the examination is
scheduled on 10.4.2022 ?"
2. The issue before the learned
Single Judge pertains to the recruitment to
the 17 posts of Computer Assistant in the
Establishment of the High Court by way of
promotion by holding a Departmental
Examination from amongst eligible Class
IV Employees working in the High Court
Establishment.
The
Notice
dated
28.09.2021
was
issued
for
inviting
applications from Class IV employees who
have
completed
5
years
continuous
satisfactory service as on 01.07.2021 and
possess
the
minimum
educational
qualification as prescribed under the Rules.
The relevant Rules which govern the
recruitment are "the Allahabad High Court
Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service
and Conduct) Rules, 1976". The Clause (ii)
of Rule 8(a)(i) of the 1976 Rules existing at
the time of issuance of the Recruitment
Notice is reproduced hereunder:-

"(ii) 40% by promotion on merit
through competitive examination from
Class IV employees who have completed
five years continuous satisfactory service
as on 01st July of the year of recruitment
and possesses the minimum educational
qualification of intermediate along with
CCC
Certificate/Diploma/Degree
in
Computer Science from recognized institute
established by law in India."

3. The cut off date for submitting the
application forms was 19.10.2021. A total
of 135 Class-IV candidates are stated to
have
applied
for
the
Departmental
Examination-2021 to be held for the
purpose of the aforesaid Recruitment. The
application forms of 114 candidates were
rejected on the ground that they did not
satisfy the condition stipulated in Rule
8(a)(i)(ii) of the 1976 Rules inasmuch as
they
did not
possess
the
minimum
educational qualification of Intermediate
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
along
with
CCC
Certificate/
Diploma/Degree of Computer Science from
recognized institute established by law in
India. Accordingly, vide Notice dated 16th
March, 2022 the Registrar (J) (S &
A/Establishment) informed the eligible 21
Class-IV candidates of the High Court,
Allahabad/Lucknow
Bench
that
the
Departmental Examination for promotion
of Class-IV employees to the post of
Computer Assistant is scheduled to be
conducted on 10.04.2022 at 11:00 AM in
the High Court Premises. The notice also
informed that the application forms of the
rest of the 114 Class-IV candidates who
had
applied
for
the
Departmental
Examination-2021 for the post of Computer
Assistant had been rejected.

4. A set of 17 candidates, whose
application forms had been rejected,
approached this Court by filing Writ (A)
No.4533 of 2022 claiming the following
reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing the impugned notice dated 16th
March 2022 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ
petition) by which the candidature of the
petitioners has been cancelled.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing the impugned notice dated 28th
September 2021 (Annexure No.5 to the writ
petition) issued by Registrar General, High
Court, Allahabad (Respondent No.2).

(iii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to permit the
petitioners to appear in the examination
and also declare their results.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Hon'ble High Court to
accept the CCC Certificate said to be
completed and accept to the candidates
who have completed their CCC before the
examination for the purpose of minimum
qualification.

(v) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents Hon'ble High
Court to permit some of the petitioners who
have not completed their CCC Certificate
and grant them sometime to complete the
same.

(vi) Issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fir and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

(vii) Award to cost of the petition
in favour of the petitioner."

5. The contention of the writ
petitioners before the learned Single Judge
was that the petitioners No. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 have obtained the
CCC
Certificates
subsequent
to
the
Recruitment Notice dated 28.09.2021 but
before
the
date
of
the
scheduled
examination i.e. 10.04.2022 and in such
view of the matter they be permitted to
appear in the examination. It was also
contended that initially vide Notification
dated 21.12.2020, 17 posts of Computer
Assistant were sought to be filled up and
the petitioners were eligible as the Rules
did not
contain
the
requirement
of
possessing
CCC
Certificate/Diploma/Degree of Computer
Science but the said notification was
cancelled and fresh notice has been issued
on 28.09.2021 but in the interregnum the
Recruitment Rules have been amended and
their application forms have been rejected
on the ground of not possessing the
qualification of CCC Certificate/ Diploma/
Degree in Computer Science. However, the
petitioners No.4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15,
5 All. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. 497
16 & 17 now possess the requisite
certificate by December, 2021 and should
not be deprived from appearing in the exam
scheduled for 10.04.2022, particularly, in
view of the fact that there was a surge of
Covid-19 cases and the CCC Certificate
Course which requires at lease 3 months
could not be perused.

6. The learned Single Judge found
favour with the contentions advanced by
the petitioners and, accordingly, by the
impugned order permitted the petitioners
possessed with the CCC Certificates to
appear in the examination after due
verification of the certificates and allowed
the final prayers (iii) & (iv) made in the
writ petition while directing that the writ
petition would be heard finally on the
question framed as reproduced herein
above. The Prayers No. iii and iv are
quoted hereunder:-

"(iii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to permit the
petitioners to appear in the examination
and also declare their results.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Hon'ble High Court to
accept the CCC Certificate said to be
completed and accept to the candidates
who have completed their CCC before the
examination for the purpose of minimum
qualification."

7. Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma,
Advocate, representing the appellants in
Special Appeal No.310 of 2022 vehemently
submits that the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in
as much as the learned Single Judge has
granted final relief as prayer Nos.3 & 4
have
been
finally
allowed
at
the
preliminary hearing stage. The learned
Single Judge has by the impugned order
permitted the petitioners to appear in the
examination and at the same time directed
for declaration of their result which is
patently illegal and impermissible under the
law. The learned Single Judge proceeds on
equity alone ignoring the settled principle
that "Equity follows Law" while granting
interim relief contrary to law. The order of
the
learned
Single
Judge
is
self
contradictory in as much as on one hand,
prayer Nos.3 & 4 in the writ petition have
been finally granted and yet the issue has
been left open to be decided at the time of
final hearing. It is submitted that a
candidate for appointment to any particular
post must fulfill the minimum eligibility
criteria on the date of advertisement or the
cut off mentioned. Admittedly, on the date
of
notice
inviting
applications
for
promotion to the posts in question i.e.
28.09.2021 the petitioners did not fulfill the
minimum eligibility criteria for promotion
to the post and the learned Single Judge by
the impugned order has issued directions
dehors the Rules itself. Lastly, it is
submitted that the writ petitioners did not
implead
the
permitted
candidates
mentioned in the order dated 16.03.2022 as
party respondents in the writ petition while
seeking its quashing and above all the writ
petition itself at the instance of the writ
petitioners who admittedly were not
eligible to participate in the recruitment
process, was not maintainable and the
learned Single Judge manifestly erred in
law in entertaining and partly allowing the
same.

8. Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha,
learned counsel representing the writ
petitioner-respondents, in opposition to the
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Special Appeals, submits that the Special
Appeals have been filed against an
interlocutory/interim order and as such, are
not maintainable. The interim order has
already taken effect in as much as the writ
petitioners have already appeared in the
exam which was held on 10.04.2022 and
the Special Appeals have thus been
rendered infructuous. The Special Appeals
are otherwise not maintainable as the
appellants themselves pursuant to the
impugned order have accepted the interim
order and permitted the other similarly
circumstanced candidates, besides the writ
petitioners to appear in the examination.
The 21 candidates mentioned in the list
appended to the impugned order dated
16.03.2022 were not required to be
impleaded as no relief was being claimed
against them. The learned Senior Counsel
thus submits that the appeals may be
dismissed and the writ petition itself which
is pending before the learned Single Judge
be decided on its merit.

9. We have heard the learned
counsels for the parties and have perused
the record.

10. We are conscious of the fact
that pursuant to the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners
have been permitted to appear in the
examination held on 10.04.2022 and in fact
the
writ
petitioners
and
similarly
circumstanced candidates have also been
permitted to appear in the examination held
on 10.04.2022. The Special Appeal in our
opinion to that extent has been rendered
infructuous. However, we find that the
learned Single Judge by the impugned
order has not only permitted the writ
petitioners to take the examination but has
also directed for declaration of their results.
Such a direction in our opinion was not
required. In fact, the direction permitting
the writ petitioners to appear in the
examination even though they did not
possess
the
requisite
qualification
prescribed
under
the
relevant
Rules
governing the field itself is contrary to law.

11. In the opinion of the Court, the
eligibility of a candidate is to be reckoned
on the fixed date indicated in the
advertisement/notification
inviting
applications. In the absence of a date fixed,
the requisite eligibility is to be judged on
the last date for making the applications
and not on any date subsequent to that date.
The Apex Court in the case of Rekha
Chaturvedi (Smt.) Vs. University of
Rajasthan and others, reported in 1993
Supp (3) SCC 168 in para 10 observed as
under:-

"10. The contention that the
required qualifications of the candidates
should be examined with reference to the
date of selection and not with reference to
the last date for making applications has
only to be stated to be rejected. The date of
selection is invariably uncertain. In the
absence of knowledge of such date the
candidates who apply for the posts would
be unable to state whether they are
qualified for the posts in question or not, if
they are yet to acquire the qualifications.
Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed
date
with
reference
to
which
the
qualifications are to be judged, whether the
said date is of selection or otherwise, it
would not be possible for the candidates
who
do
not
possess
the
requisite
qualifications in praesenti even to make
applications for the posts. The uncertainty
of the date may also lead to a contrary
consequence, viz., even those candidates
who do not have the qualifications in
praesenti and are likely to acquire them at
5 All. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Devendra Pal Singh & Ors. 499
an uncertain future date, may apply for the
posts
thus
swelling
the
number
of
applications. But a still worse consequence
may follow, in that it may leave open a
scope for malpractices. The date of
selection may be so fixed or manipulated as
to entertain some applicants and reject
others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of
a
fixed
date
indicated
in
the
advertisement/notification
inviting
applications with reference to which the
requisite qualifications should be judged,
the only certain date for the scrutiny of the
qualifications will be the last date for
making
the
applications.
We
have,
therefore, no hesitation in holding that
when the selection Committee in the
present case, as argued by Shri Manoj
Swarup,
took
into
consideration
the
requisite qualifications as on the date of
selection rather than on the last date of
preferring applications, it acted with patent
illegality, and on this ground itself the
selections in question are liable to be
quashed. Reference in this connection may
also be made to two recent decisions of this
Court in A.P. Public Service Commission,
Hyderabad & Anr. v. B. Sarat Chandra &
Ors., (1990) 4 SLR 235 and The District
Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram
(Social Welfare Residential School Society)
Vidanagaran & Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari
Devi, (1990) 4 SLR 237."

12. A similar question as involved in
the case at hand arose in the case of Ashok
Kumar Sharma and another Vs. Chander
Shekher and another, reported in 1993
Supp (2) SCC 611. The question involved
was
as
to
whether
the
educational
qualifications should be possessed on the
date of submission of the application form
or on the date of interview. The majority
view was that the requirement stood
fulfilled if the candidates were possessed of
the requisite educational qualifications on
the date of the interview even though they
admittedly did not possess the same at the
time of submission of the application
forms. The majority view held that it was in
public interest to entertain applications of
candidates who did not possess requisite
educational qualification on the date of
application but possessed it on the date of
interview, despite express instructions in
the advertisement that such applications
would not be entertained.

13. The majority view in Ashok
Kumar
Sharma's
case
was
however
reviewed and not approved by the Apex
Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma & others
Vs. Chander Shekhar and another,
reported in 1997 (4) SCC 18 by observing
as under:-

"The
proposition
that where
applications are called for prescribing a
particular date as the last date for fling the
applications,
the
eligibility
of
the
candidates shall have to be judged with
reference to that date and that date alone,
is a well-established one. A person who
acquires
the
prescribed
qualification
subsequent to such prescribed date cannot
be considered at all. An advertisement or
notification issued/published calling for
applications constitutes a representation to
the public and the authority issuing it is
bound by such representation. It cannot act
contrary to it. One reason behind this
proposition is that if it were known that
persons who obtained the qualifications
after the prescribed date but before the
date of interview would be allowed to
appear for the interview would be allowed
to appear for the interview, other similiarly
placed persons could also have applied.
Just because some of the persons had
applied notwithstanding that they had not
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acquired the prescribed qualifications by
the prescribed date, they could not have
been treated on a preferential basis. Their
application ought to have been rejected at
the inception itself. This proposition is
indisputable and in fact was not doubted or
disputed in the majority Judgement. This is
also the proposition affirmed in Rekha
Chaturvedi
(Smt.)
v.
University
of
Rajasthan and others [1993 Suppl. (3)
S.C.C 168]. The reasoning in majority
opinion
that
by
allowing
the
33
respondents to appear for the interview, the
Recruiting Authority was able to get the
bests talent available and that such course
was in furtherence of public interest is,
with respect, an impermissible Justification
It is, in our considered opinion, a clear
error of low and an error apparent on the
face of the record. In our opinion, R.M.
Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the
High Court) was right in holding that the
33 respondents could not have allowed to
appear for interview."

14. In view of the above legal
position, we are of the opinion that the
learned Single Judge erred in law in
permitting the writ petitioners/ respondents
who admittedly did not possess the
minimum educational qualifications as
prescribed under Rule 8(a)(i)(ii) of the
Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff
(Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules,
1976 as it stood on the date of the notice
inviting applications to appear in the
examination and also declare their results.
Since the writ petitioners/ respondents have
already appeared in the examination held
on 10.04.2022, we deem it appropriate to
modify the order of the learned Single
Judge by directing that the results of the
writ petitioner/respondents and all other
candidates who have been permitted to take
the examination dated 10.04.2022 pursuant
to the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 08.04.2022 shall not be declared and
shall abide by the outcome of the writ
petition. The results of all other candidates
may be declared by the High Court, if it so
desires, however, the results so declared
shall also abide by the outcome of the writ
petition. We have been informed that the
counter and rejoinder affidavits have been
exchanged
between
the
parties.
Accordingly, in the circumstances, we
request the learned Single Judge to proceed
to decide the writ petition on merits at the
earliest.

15. The Special Appeals are
disposed of accordingly.
----------
(2022)05ILR A500
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Spl. Appeal No. 23 of 2022

Jyoti Sikka ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Lalta Prasad Misra, Naveen Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Practice & Procedure - Joinder/ NonJoinder of Parties - The appellant does not
have any personal interest or concern with
the said dispute except that she has been
representing the writ petitioner before the
learned Single Judge. Thus the Court is of
the opinion that the parties in the writ
petition are not necessary parties to be