# Santosh Ji Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 390
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-16
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 3861 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-ji-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54593
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 - Section 16-G - Regulations
under U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921 - Regulations 2(2), 101 - In instant
case, Government Order and amended
Regulation dated 06.01.2022 require that
candidates for promotion to Class-III
posts
must
possess
qualifications
equivalent to direct recruits, including
mandatory typing test - Since petitioner's
promotion considered after amendment,
compliance with typing requirement was
essential - No typing test conducted,
DIOS erroneously approved promotion
on 22.10.2024, overlooking requirement
- Judgment in Sudhanshu Tyagi (infra)
upholding Government Order attained
finality
-
If
petitioner
holds
CCC
certificate from DOEACC, his reluctance
to appear in typing test is unwarranted -
Petitioner shall not suffer prejudice by
appearing in typing test pursuant to
impugned order, his experience and
length
of
service
will
be
properly
considered. (Para 15, 16 )

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charge sheet has not been placed before the
District Inspector of Schools for seeking
approval of the suspension so in view of
settled proposition of law, the District
Inspector of Schools had no material before
him to form a view so as to approve the
suspension
order
as
per
procedure
prescribed under the Act, 1921. Not only
the above, in view of the given facts and
circumstances, the District Inspector of
Schools was also required to afford an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on
the question of approval of the suspension
order.

42. Since the aforesaid error is
apparent on the face of record, therefore,
the impugned order dated 20.12.2024
(Annexure No.1) passed by the District
Inspector of Schools, Sitapur is not liable to
be sustained, accordingly, the same is set
aside/ quashed.

43. The Committee of Management is
directed to supply all requisite documents
including copy of the charge sheet dated
08.01.2025, which was served upon the
petitioner on 15.01.2025, and also all the
relevant documents in support of the charge
sheet to the District Inspector of Schools,
Sitapur, within three weeks from today.
The District Inspector of Schools shall
thereafter fix date providing an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner as well as the
Committee of Management within fifteen
days and shall proceed to pass a fresh order
within further period of fifteen days.

44. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 390
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 3861 of 2025

Santosh Ji Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pt. S. Chandra, Poonam Narayan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 - Section 16-G - Regulations
under U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921 - Regulations 2(2), 101 - In instant
case, Government Order and amended
Regulation dated 06.01.2022 require that
candidates for promotion to Class-III
posts
must
possess
qualifications
equivalent to direct recruits, including
mandatory typing test - Since petitioner's
promotion considered after amendment,
compliance with typing requirement was
essential - No typing test conducted,
DIOS erroneously approved promotion
on 22.10.2024, overlooking requirement
- Judgment in Sudhanshu Tyagi (infra)
upholding Government Order attained
finality
-
If
petitioner
holds
CCC
certificate from DOEACC, his reluctance
to appear in typing test is unwarranted -
Petitioner shall not suffer prejudice by
appearing in typing test pursuant to
impugned order, his experience and
length
of
service
will
be
properly
considered. (Para 15, 16 )

Petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. & Ors. Vs Umesh Chandra
Srivastava, Special Appeal (Defective) No.477 of
2010

2. Sudhanshu Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A
No.23580 of 2018, (Para 14 to 18)
4 All. Santosh Ji Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
391
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Pt. S. Chandra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay
Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel for the State-opposite parties no.1,
2 & 3, Sri Ghanshyam Verma, who has
filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite
party no.6 and Sri Ajay Pratap Singh-II,
who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of
opposite party no.7. Said Vakalatnamas are
taken on record.

2. In view of the proposed order,
notices to opposite parties no.4 & 5 are
hereby dispensed with.

3. With the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, this writ petition is being
decided finally at the admission stage.

4. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has prayed following main
reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
28.03.2025 passed by the Director of
Education (Madhyamik) Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow as contained in Annexure no.1 to
this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to not
create
obstruction
in
working
and
functioning of the petitioner on the post of
clerk of B.P. Inter College, Kudwar,
Sultanpur."

5. By means of order under
challenge, the Director of Education
(Madhyamik) has directed that for filling
up the post of Assistant Clerk from ClassIV post, typing test of the candidates/
applicants should be conducted in view of
the
Government
Notification
dated
06.01.2022.

6. Pt. S. Chandra has submitted that
the present petitioner had filed one writ
petition bearing Writ-A No.7291 of 2024,
which was decided by this Court directing
the competent authority to take appropriate
decision in the issue of the petitioner
regarding his promotion on Class-III post.
The Authorized Controller of the Institution
in
question
passed
an
order
dated
10.10.2024 (Annexure No.4) holding that
the candidature of the petitioner is suitable
for promotion on the post of Junior
Assistant.
The
District
Inspector
of
Schools, Sultanpur has given approval to
the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2024 by
means
of
order
dated
22.10.2024
(Annexure No.2). Thereafter, appointment
letter was issued by the Authorized
Controller of the Institution on 23.10.2024
(Annexure
No.3)
and
the
petitioner
submitted his joining on the post of
Assistant Clerk on the same date i.e.
23.10.2024. Since then, the petitioner has
been discharging his duties on the post of
Assistant Clerk.

7. Opposite party no.6 preferred a
letter dated 11.11.2024 to the Director of
Education (Madhyamik) challenging the
aforesaid promotion order of the petitioner
on the ground that the petitioner is not
having knowledge of typing, which is a
required qualification, therefore, he could
have not been appointed on the post of
Assistant Clerk. On such complaint of
opposite party no.6, the Director of
Education (Madhyamik) called report from
the District Inspector of Schools concerned
and after considering the report of the
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District Inspector of Schools and the
relevant circular/ rules/ regulations etc., the
impugned order dated 28.03.2025 has been
passed directing to conduct typing test for
making promotion on the post of Assistant
Clerk.

8. Pt. S. Chandra has drawn
attention of this Court towards Annexure
No.8 of the writ petition, which is ChapterIII of the Regulations under the U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
(hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations
under the Act, 1921") indicating the
conditions of service under Section 16-G of
the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1921").
As per Regulation-2 (2) of the Regulations
under the Act, 1921, post of Head
Clerk/Clerk may be filled up through
promotion under 50% promotional quota
amongst Clerk and Class-IV employees,
who are having prescribed eligibility for
the post in question and completed five
years of continuous service. Sri Chandra
has stated that the petitioner is an eligible
person
as
he
is
having
required
qualification and has completed more than
five
years
continuous
service.
The
qualification
of
the
petitioner
is
Intermediate and is having CCC Certificate
as photocopies of the aforesaid certificates
have been shown to the Court, which have
been enclosed with the writ petition. He has
also stated that for making promotion on
the post of Assistant Clerk, there is no
requirement of typing test.

9. Attention has been drawn
towards Annexure No.9 of the writ petition,
which is a judgment and order dated
20.07.2010 passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in Special Appeal (Defective)
No.477 of 2010, State of U.P. & Ors. Vs.
Umesh Chandra Srivastava. In the
aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of
this Court has categorically indicated that
the source of recruitment under Rule 8 (2)
of the Recruitment Rules (relating to the
Rules which was under consideration
before the Division Bench), which provides
for
procedure
for
recruitment
by
promotion, there is no requirement of
qualifying typing test. Therefore, the
Division Bench directed the Department to
consider the claim of the respondent of that
appeal for promotion on the basis of marks
obtained by the respondent without asking
him to pass typing test.

10. Pt. S. Chandra has drawn
attention of this Court towards Annexure
No.11 of the writ petition, which is a
Government
Order
dated
04.01.2017
providing the qualification for promotion
on the post of Junior Assistant from ClassIV post. As per the aforesaid Government
Order,
the
qualification
for
direct
recruitment under 50% quota would be
Intermediate,
having
CCC
Certificate
issued from DOEACC and knowledge of
typing in Hindi/ English having speed of
25/30
words
per
minute.
For
50%
promotional quota, it has been indicated
that the candidate must possess the
qualification
prescribed
for
direct
recruitment and must have five years
experience in continuous service. Pt. S.
Chandra has stated that since for the post of
Assistant Clerk, there is no need to have
typing test and the petitioner is having
qualification of Intermediate and CCC
Certificate
issued
from
DOEACC,
therefore, he was fully eligible to be
promoted on the post of Assistant Clerk. As
per him, considering the aforesaid fact, the
Authorized Controller has rightly proposed
for his promotion on the post of Assistant
Clerk and the District Inspector of Schools
has rightly approved that promotion of the
4 All. Santosh Ji Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
393
petitioner and pursuant to that exercise, the
petitioner has been discharging his duties
on the post of Assistant Clerk w.e.f.
23.10.2024. Further submission is that the
qualification
prescribed
under
the
Government Notification dated 06.01.2022
is for direct recruitment, not for the
promotional posts. Pt. S. Chandra has
further submitted that the Director of
Education (Madhyamik) has no power to
pass the impugned order. Therefore, by
means of impugned order dated 28.03.2025
issuing direction to conduct the typing test
is absolutely illegal, unwarranted and
uncalled for.

11. Per contra, learned counsels
for the opposite parties have stated that as
per Chapter-III of the Regulations under
the Act, 1921 relating to Section 16-G of
the Act, 1921 i.e. condition of service,
which has been categorically indicated
under Regulation 2 of the Regulations
under the Act, 1921 that class IV
employee may be promoted on the post of
Assistant
Clerk,
if
he
is
having
qualification for that post and has
completed five years continuous service.
The eligibility for promotion has been
prescribed in the Government Order
dated 04.01.2017 wherein it has been
categorically indicated that Class-IV
employee may be promoted on Class-III
post if he is having all qualification
prescribed for the direct recruitment and
is having five years experience of
continuous
service.
Since
the
qualification prescribed for the direct
recruitment is the candidate must be
having qualification of Intermediate,
CCC Certificate issued from DOEACC
and his typing speed in Hindi/English
must be 25/30 words per minute as well
as he is having five years experience in
service. Since the petitioner has not stated
in his petition that he is having typing
speed in Hindi/English @ 25/30 words per
minute, therefore, he is lacking such
qualification. Further, if the petitioner is
having CCC Certificate from DOEACC
and he is having typing speed in
Hindi/English @ 25/30 words per minute,
he should not have hesitant in appearing in
typing test, which has been directed by the
Director
of
Education
(Madyamik)
inasmuch as the Director is only following
the procedure so prescribed and upheld by
this Court in some cases.

12. Learned counsels for the
opposite parties have also stated that by
way of amendment through notification
dated 06.01.2022, such qualification has
been added under Regulation 101 of the
Regulations framed under the Act,
1921. They have also stated that the
judgment so cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner would not be
applicable in the present case inasmuch
as under the Rules so referred before
the Division Bench, admittedly, there
was no requirement of qualifying the
typing test but in the present case,
typing
test
is
a
mandatory
qualification in terms of Government
Order dated 04.01.2017 as well as vide
notification dated 06.01.2022.

13. Learned counsels for the
opposite parties have placed reliance upon
the judgment and order dated 22.11.2018
passed by this Court in Writ-A No.23580
of 2018, Sudhanshu Tyagi Vs. State of
U.P. and 4 Others, wherein similar
controversy has been adjudicated and this
Court upheld the validity of Government
Order dated 04.01.2017. Paragraphs no.14
to 18 of the judgment in re; Sudhanshu
Tyagi (supra) are being reproduced herein
below:-
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "14. The issue, however, has to
be examined from a different perspective.
Section 9 of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 confers power upon
the State Government to issue necessary
instructions in the manner contemplated in
the Act itself. Section 9(4) of the Act is
relevant for the present purposes and is
reproduced hereafter:-

 " 9(4). Whenever, in the opinion
of the State Government, it is necessary or
expedition to take immediate action, it
may, without making any reference to the
Board under the foregoing provisions, pass
such order or take such other action
consistent with the provisions of this Act as
it deems necessary, and in particular, may
by such order modify or rescind or make
any regulation in respect of any matter and
shall
forthwith
inform
the
Board
accordingly."

 15. The power of the State
Government is broad and comprehensive so
as to include passing such order or to take
such other action consistent with the
provisions of this Act, as it may deem
necessary, and by passing an order modify
or rescind or make any regulation in respect
of any matter and shall forthwith inform the
Board accordingly. The power conferred in
the State, therefore, by virtue of sub rule
(4) of Rule 9 could be pressed for tracing
source of power in issuing the Government
Orders dated 23.8.2016 and 4.1.2017. It has
also been noticed that the procedure and the
qualification for promotion to a Class-III
post is, otherwise, not specifically provided
for
in
the
Regulation.
The
State
Government, therefore, would be well
within its competence to prescribe the
qualification as also the procedure to be
followed for effecting promotion from
Class-IV post to Class-III post. Such
exercise of power is otherwise not shown to
be inconsistent with the provisions of the
Act of 1921. Moreover, the power under
Section 9(4) of the Act includes the power
to modify or rescind or make a Regulation.
In such circumstances the argument of
inconsistency with the Regulations cannot
be pressed on behalf of petitioner to resist
the govt. orders dated 23.8.2016 and
4.1.2017 as well as consequential actions
thereunder. The Government Orders dated
23.8.2016 and 4.1.2017 although are
challenged but no valid reasons or grounds
have been put forth on account of which
any interference would be warranted, once
the power to issue such direction is traced
to statute and is otherwise not irrational or
discriminatory.

 16. The only grounds pressed on
behalf of the petitioners to challenge the
Government Orders are that:

 (i) The statutory regulations have
not
been
amended
despite
a
clear
stipulation made in the Government Order
itself;

 (ii) The Government Orders run
counter to the statutory Rules of 2014
which
stands
adopted
by
virtue
of
Regulation 2(1) of the Regulations framed
under Chapter-III.

 17. So far as amendment in
regulation is concerned, the same is merely
a ministerial act and would not be a ground
to interfere with the Government Order,
particularly as there exists no provision in
law, where under the decision taken under
Section 9(4) of the Act needs to be
incorporated by amending Regulations
itself. No statutory obligation in that regard
has been placed before the Court. The
4 All. Santosh Ji Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
395
argument
advanced
in
that
regard,
therefore, cannot be accepted.

 18. The second ground urged on
behalf of the petitioner also can not be
sustained in view of the clear power
available to the State to amend the
regulations, by virtue of Section 9(4) of the
Act. The Statute confers power upon the
State Government to amend or alter the
regulation or to make regulations. Any
provision in the regulations, therefore,
cannot be relied upon to challenge the
specific invocation of authority under the
Act itself or an order passed thereunder.
Therefore, no inconsistency is found in the
Government Order vis-a-vis Regulation
2(1) of the Regulations. For all such
reasons, the challenge laid to Clause-2 of
the Government Order dated 4.1.2017,
fails."

14. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
material available on record as well as the
judgment so cited by the learned counsel
for the parties, I am of the considered
opinion that by means of impugned order
dated 28.03.2025, the direction of the
Director to conduct the typing test for
filling up the post of Assistant Clerk under
the promotional quota is absolutely proper
as the same has been issued in terms of the
Government Order dated 04.01.2017 and
notification dated 06.01.2022.

15. The judgment so cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner would not
be applicable in the present case inasmuch
as in that case the Rules so referred were
not having any provision where the
requirement of qualifying the typing test
was mandatory whereas in the present case,
such qualification is mandatory. In the
Government Order dated 04.01.2017, it has
been categorically indicated that the post
under promotional quota for Class-III post
would be filled up from the candidates,
who are having qualification prescribed for
the direct recruitment candidates and are
having
five
years
experience
and
requirement of typing test is mandatory for
the direct recruitment candidates. The
aforesaid condition has been inserted under
the Regulation through amendment issued
vide notification dated 06.01.2022 and the
exercise in the present case for the
petitioner had been undertaken after
06.01.2022. Admittedly, no typing test was
conducted when the promotion of the
petitioner on Class-III post was proposed
by the Authorized Controller and this
aspect was overlooked by the District
Inspector
of
Schools
while
granting
approval on 22.10.2024. Besides, this Court
in re; Sudhanshu Tyagi (supra) has upheld
the Government Order dated 04.01.2017
and that judgment and order has not been
challenged as yet, therefore, as on today,
that judgment and order has attained
finality, so I am following the judgment
and order passed by the Coordinate Bench
in re; Sudhanshu Tyagi (supra). If the
petitioner is having sound knowledge of
computer as he is having CCC Certificate
from DOEACC, he should not be hesitant
in appearing in typing test.

16. It is needless to say that if the
petitioner appears in typing test in terms of
the impugned order dated 28.03.2025, no
prejudice shall be caused to him for the
reason that he challenged the impugned
order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the
Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P.,
Lucknow and other qualifications of the
petitioner e.g. his experience, length of
service etc. would be considered properly.
However, I am not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order dated 28.03.2025
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed by the Director of Education
(Madhyamik), U.P., Lucknow.

17. Accordingly, this writ petition
is dismissed.

18. No order as to costs.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 396
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 4208 of 2025

Jayant Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aaditya Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Brijesh Kumar Singh

Civil Law - Back wages - ReinSt. -
Termination order dated 14.02.2025 is
arbitrary and illegal, as it was passed
without
holding
any
inquiry
and
in
violation of principles of natural justice -
If only ground for termination was FIR
which was lodged against petitioner and
his judicial custody from 10.01.2025 to
17.01.2025, then proper course was to
suspend him and conduct departmental
inquiry - Direct termination on this basis
causes stigma - Even if there are no
service rules to conduct departmental
inquiry against erring employee, basic
requirement of giving fair hearing must be
followed before passing punishment order
-
Competent
Authority
may
pass
appropriate order after hearing petitioner,
with due expedition. (Para 11, 13)

Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Basudeo Tiwary Vs Sido Kanhu University &
ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 194, (Para 9, 10)

2. Shasya Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported in
2020 SCC OnLine All 106, Service Single No.854
of 2020; (Para 11, 13)

3. Nar Singh Pal Vs U.O.I., & ors. reported in
(2000) 3 SCC 588, (Para 6, 8, 10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vikram Singh, learned
Advocate holding brief of Shri Aaditya
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the Stateopposite party Nos.1, 2, & 3 and Shri Vikas
Srivastav Bakshi, learned counsel, who has
filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite
party No.4, the same is taken on record.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-

"(I) to issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
certiorariquashing
the
impugned
termination order dated 14.02.2025 passed
by the Respondent No.4, contained as
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

(II) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondents to reinstate
the petitioner in service allowing him to
perform his duties along with the back
wages and all consequential benefits, while
also
extend
the
petitioner's
services