# Rekha Pal v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 763
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-07
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 10351 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rekha-pal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54785
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of claim to provide the benefit of
National Trade Certificate, which could not be
mentioned
during
submitting
the
online
application.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Selection - Post of
Instructor
-
Petitioner,
though
had
National Trade Certificate, but failed to
mention
it
while
submitting
online
application - Claim for considering it was
made after when petitioner was declared
unsuccessful in the result - Permissibility:
Held : Undisputedly, petitioner was not careful
while submitting form online. She has chosen to
apply only on basis of diploma and she
competed accordingly and her selection was
also considered only on basis of diploma and
admittedly she got marks below cut off marks -
If submission of learned Senior Advocate is
accepted, it would open a pandora box that in
similar circumstances, even a candidate remains
careless and has failed to submit correct details
and has even failed to make correction in
stipulated time would approach this Court,
therefore,, argument of learned Senior Counsel
that claim of petitioner that her marks be
considered amongst the candidates applied
under the category of NTC cannot be accepted.
[Paras 9 and 10] (E- 1)

Case Law Cited
Writ A No. 4070/2020; Ashutosh Kumar
Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and
others decided on 30.05.2020 - referred to.

List of Keywords
Examination;
Online
application;
Diploma
holder; National Trade Certificate; Reservation;
Advertisement;
Eligibility;
Cut
off
marks;
Careless; Category of NCT.

Case Arising From
Result declared by UP Subordinate Service
Selection Commission.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Ashok Khare, Senior
Advocate, Kauntey Singh
Advs. For the Respondent : Siddharth Singhal

## Text

11 All. Rekha Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
763
it being passed without any reason still it
was not interfered which appears to be an
incorrect approach.

22. In view of above, the impugned
order, to the extent of quantum of
surcharge only, is interfered and the matter
is remitted back to pass a fresh order so far
as extent of surcharge is concerned. This
exercise shall be concluded within a period
of six months from today. The factom of
retirement of petitioner will not come in
way to undertake the above exercise. The
finding
that
petitioner
was
willful
negligent is upheld.

23.
With
aforesaid
observations/
directions, all three writ petitions are
disposed of. Retiral dues of petitioner shall
be subject to outcome of above exercise.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 763
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 10351 of 2025

Rekha Pal ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Adv.

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of claim to provide the benefit of
National Trade Certificate, which could not be
mentioned
during
submitting
the
online
application.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Selection - Post of
Instructor
-
Petitioner,
though
had
National Trade Certificate, but failed to
mention
it
while
submitting
online
application - Claim for considering it was
made after when petitioner was declared
unsuccessful in the result - Permissibility:
Held : Undisputedly, petitioner was not careful
while submitting form online. She has chosen to
apply only on basis of diploma and she
competed accordingly and her selection was
also considered only on basis of diploma and
admittedly she got marks below cut off marks -
If submission of learned Senior Advocate is
accepted, it would open a pandora box that in
similar circumstances, even a candidate remains
careless and has failed to submit correct details
and has even failed to make correction in
stipulated time would approach this Court,
therefore,, argument of learned Senior Counsel
that claim of petitioner that her marks be
considered amongst the candidates applied
under the category of NTC cannot be accepted.
[Paras 9 and 10] (E- 1)

Case Law Cited
Writ A No. 4070/2020; Ashutosh Kumar
Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and
others decided on 30.05.2020 - referred to.

List of Keywords
Examination;
Online
application;
Diploma
holder; National Trade Certificate; Reservation;
Advertisement;
Eligibility;
Cut
off
marks;
Careless; Category of NCT.

Case Arising From
Result declared by UP Subordinate Service
Selection Commission.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Ashok Khare, Senior
Advocate, Kauntey Singh
Advs. For the Respondent : Siddharth Singhal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kauntey
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and
Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for
respondents.

2.
Petitioner
has
applied
for
examination for the post of Instructor in
pursuance
of
Adv.
No.
02Examination/2022 conducted by Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection
Commission, Lucknow.

3. It is not disputed that petitioner
is qualified for post of Instructor being a
Diploma Holder as well as having a
National Trade Certificate (NTC). There
was a reservation to the extent of 50% for
each category.

4. It is also not disputed that while
submitting the online application, petitioner
has only mentioned details of Diploma in
Cosmetology. She has not mentioned about
NTC as well as that she has not made any
correction within stipulated time and in
such conditions only, she appeared in
examination, however, she got less marks
than cut off marks so far as candidates
belonging to diploma are concerned,
therefore, she remained unsuccessful.

5. Learned Senior Advocate has
submitted that she was qualified if her
candidature
is
considered
amongst
candidates having NTC and since at the
stage of submitting documents, she has also
submitted NTC which was verified also,
therefore, her claim ought to have been
considered amongst candidates having
NTC, hence, petitioner is prejudiced.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondents by referring relevant clause of
advertisement has submitted that it was
duty of petitioner-candidate to submit
correct details as well as that documents
could be verified only on basis of details
submitted in online application, even other
documents were submitted, therefore, claim
of petitioner was considered on basis of her
eligibility of diploma which was mentioned
in online application and admittedly, she
got less marks than cut off marks in said
category.

7. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for respondents has placed
reliance upon a judgment of coordinate
Bench of this Court in Ashutosh Kumar
Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P.
and others, Writ A No. 4070/2020
decided on 30.05.2020.

8.
I
have
considered
above
submissions and perused the records.

9. Undisputedly, petitioner was not
careful while submitting form online. She
has chosen to apply only on basis of
diploma and she competed accordingly and
her selection was also considered only on
basis of diploma and admittedly she got
marks below cut off marks.

10. If submission of learned Senior
Advocate is accepted, it would open a
pandora box that in similar circumstances,
even a candidate remains careless and has
failed to submit correct details and has even
failed to make correction in stipulated time
would approach this Court, therefore,,
argument of learned Senior Counsel that
claim of petitioner that her marks be
considered amongst the candidates applied
under the category of NTC cannot be
accepted.

11. The dictum of Ashutosh
Kumar Srivastava (supra) is also against
submission of the petitioner, therefore,
there is no reason to allow prayer of this
11 All. Deepa Magleena Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
765
writ petition that petitioner be
recommended for appointment on post of
Instructor in Cosmetology on the basis of
NTC since admittedly, she has not filed the
details of NTC in online form and has
failed
to
correct
the
details
within
stipulated period, therefore, there is no
reason to accept her plea.

12. Accordingly, writ petition lacks
merit, hence, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 765
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 10843 of 2025

Deepa Magleena ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jigar Khare, Shagun K. Saran, Yash Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Srishti Gupta,C.S.C., Shruti Taneja

Issue for Consideration
1. Permissibility of claiming the absorption by a
teacher appointed in the year 1991, particularly
when she herself applied afresh in pursuance of
advertisement issued in the year 2019.
2. Applicability of doctrine of estoppel and
principle of acquiescence.
3. Scope of reasonable restriction provided to
right of minority right under Article 30(1) of the
Constitution of India and Permissibility of
seeking
exemption
from
requirement
of
possessing the T.E.T. certificate.
4. Effect of using forged U.P.T.E.T. certificate to
obtain appointment.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Post of Assistant
Teacher in the minority institution -
Petitioner, though appointed in the year
1991, she applied afresh for selection
process
held
in
pursuance
of
the
advertisement issued in the year 2019 -
Claim
of
absorption
was
made
-
Permissibility - Doctrine of estoppel and
principle of acquiescence - Applicability :
Held : The petitioner herself applied afresh
pursuant to the public advertisement issued in
2019, participated in the selection process
without protest, and was duly issued an
appointment letter thereafter - In view of the
doctrine
of
estoppel
and
principle
of
acquiescence, once the petitioner voluntarily
subjected herself to the fresh recruitment
process, she cannot now claim absorption with
retrospective effect based on the inclusion of
the institution in the Grant-in-Aid list. [Paras 84
and 85]
(B) Constitution of India - Article 30(1) -
Minority institution - Right to establish
and administer - Reasonable restriction -
Scope - Exemption from requirement of
possessing T.E.T. certificate claimed -
Permissibility :
Held : Article 30(1) undoubtedly guarantees to
minorities the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice; however,
this right cannot be stretched to claim immunity
from reasonable regulations framed to ensure
academic excellence and maintain standards of
education. - The said right is subject to
reasonable restrictions in the interest of
maintaining efficiency, discipline, and proper
utilization of public funds where the institution is
in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State - The
Constitution Bench in the case of T.M.A. Pai
Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC
481, categorically held that 'the right to
administer does not include the right to maladminister' - The exemption sought from the
mandatory requirement of T.E.T., which is a
qualification
prescribed
in
furtherance
of
maintaining
minimum
teaching
standards,
cannot be sustained. The plea founded upon
Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, is
therefore untenable. [Para 92, 93, 95 and 104]
(C) Service law - Appointment - Post of
Assistant Teacher in minority institution -
Forged U.P.T.E.T. certificate was used to
obtain
appointment
- In
verification