# Saurabh Saxena v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 724
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-15
- **Case number:** Special Appeal (D) No. 10 of 2025
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saurabh-saxena-v-union-of-india-ors-53072
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
UP
Government
Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors
and Foreman Instructors) Service Rules,
2021 - Post of Instructor in Sewing
Technology
-
Qualification
-
Determination - Competence of the Court
-
Diploma
in
Garment
Fabrication
Technology/Costume
Design
&
Dress
making was required, but instead it, a
qualification equivalent to it was claimed
to be possessed - Permissibility - Held,
any person claiming to possess any
qualification equivalent to a required
1 All. Saurabh Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors.
725
Diploma, would not be eligible to apply
against the advertisement - The question
of equivalence of qualification in the
matter of examining the eligibility for the
purpose of employment, is to be decided
by the employer and the Courts cannot
treat any qualification to be equivalent to
the qualifications prescribed in the Rules.
(Para 15 and 16)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Therefore, considering the offences
under the NDPS Act which are very
serious in nature and against the
society at large, no discretion shall
be exercised in favour of such
accused who is indulging into the
offence under the NDPS Act."

15. Upon hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and from the perusal
of the record and the two custody
certificates, it transpires that the corpus
Gurmel Singh is a repeat offender under the
N.D.P.S. Act and has been convicted in two
separate offences by different trial courts in
two different transactions having different
case crime numbers and the cases have
been registered at different Police Stations
in different States and have been decided
by two different judgments. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of
concurrent sentence under Section 427 of
Cr.P.C. especially when there is no specific
order or direction that the sentences shall
run concurrently. He is in custody since
31.12.2005. His sentence in FIR No.
306/2005 at Punjab was completed on
17.09.2019 and thereafter his sentence in
FIR No.89/2006 at Uttar Pradesh started on
18.09.2019 and is continuing till date. He
has served approximately seven years of
imprisonment with remission.

16. The learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1,
Etawah in its judgment and order of
conviction dated 18.01.2010 has not passed
any specific order or direction while
imposing the subsequent sentence that the
subsequent sentence shall run concurrently
with
the
previous
sentence.
The
petitioner/corpus having been convicted
repeatedly for an offence under the NDPS
Act, which is very serious in nature and
against the society at large, therefore, no
discretion shall be exercised in favour of
the petitioner. In the light of the Hon'ble
Apex Court's judgment as discussed above,
the petitioner shall have to serve the
remaining sentence consecutively after the
date of expiration of the previous sentence.

17. In view of the above and for
the reasons stated above, the corpus has not
been illegally detained by the respondent
no. 2. The present Habeas Corpus Writ
Petition fails and the same deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 724
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Special Appeal (D) No. 10 of 2025

Saurabh Saxena ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Rishi Raj, Garv Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra, S M Singh
Royekwar

A.
Service
Law
-
UP
Government
Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors
and Foreman Instructors) Service Rules,
2021 - Post of Instructor in Sewing
Technology
-
Qualification
-
Determination - Competence of the Court
-
Diploma
in
Garment
Fabrication
Technology/Costume
Design
&
Dress
making was required, but instead it, a
qualification equivalent to it was claimed
to be possessed - Permissibility - Held,
any person claiming to possess any
qualification equivalent to a required
1 All. Saurabh Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors.
725
Diploma, would not be eligible to apply
against the advertisement - The question
of equivalence of qualification in the
matter of examining the eligibility for the
purpose of employment, is to be decided
by the employer and the Courts cannot
treat any qualification to be equivalent to
the qualifications prescribed in the Rules.
(Para 15 and 16)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sri Subir Sutradhar Vs St. of Tripura & ors.;
2023 SCC OnLine Tri 183

2. Shifana P.S. Vs St. of Kerala & ors.; (2024) 8
SCC 309

3.
District
Collector
and
Chairman
Vijayanagaram Vs M. Tripura Sundari Devi; 1990
(3) SCC 655

4. Zahoor Ahmad Rather & ors. Vs Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad & ors.; (2019) 2 SCC 404

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi J. & Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

C.M. Application No.1 of 2025
(Application for condonation of delay in
filing the Special Appeal)

1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj, the learned
counsel for the appellant, Sri Prafulla
Yadav,
the
learned Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State, Sri Anand Dwivedi, the learned
counsel for Union of India, Sri S.M. Singh
Royekwar, the learned counsel for the U.P.
Subordinate
Services
Selection
Commission and perused the records.

2. This is an application for
condonation of delay in filing the Special
Appeal. The learned Counsel for the
respondent did not raise any objection
against the application. We find that just
and plausible reasons have been disclosed
by the applicant-appellant for seeking
condonation of delay.

3. The application for condonation
of delay is allowed and the delay in filing
the Special Appeal is hereby condoned.

4. Let the Special Appeal be
assigned a regular number.

Order on the Special
Appeal: -
1. By means of the instant
Intra Court Appeal filed under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
the appellant has challenged the
validity of the judgment and order
dated 21.02.2024, passed by an
Hon'ble Single Judge Bench of this
Court in Writ-A No.1327 of 2024,
whereby the Writ Petition filed by
the appellant challenging an order
dated 15.02.2024 passed by Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate
Services
Selection
Commission,
was
dismissed. The appellant had filed
an application for review of the
aforesaid order which has been
dismissed
by
an
order
dated
26.11.2024 and the appellant has
challenged the validity of that order
also.
2. Briefly stated, facts of
the case are that Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate
Services
Selection
Commission
had
issued
an
advertisement
for
making
appointments on various posts,
including some posts of Instructors
in
Sewing
Technology.
The
eligibility
qualification
for
appointment
to
the
post
of
Instructor is as follows: -
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(i) having passed High
School Examination conducted by
the Intermediate Education Board,
U.P. or any other examination
recognized by the government as
equivalent thereto,

(ii) eligibility qualification
for different trades/subjects as
provided in Column 4 of the
Appendix and
(iii)
National
Craft
Instructor Certificate in relevant
trade under DGT and any other
qualification prescribed in Column
4 of the Appendix.
The advertisement further
provided that the candidate must
possess the relevant experience, as
provided in Column 4 of the
Appendix.

3. The appellant had applied for
the post of Instructor in Sewing Technology
for
which
the
essential
qualification
prescribed in Column 4 of the Appendix to
the Uttar Pradesh Government Industrial
Training
Institutes
(Instructors
and
Foreman Instructors) Service Rules, 2021
referred to in the advertisement, is as
follows: -

33
.
Sewing
Technolog
y
[4
]
B. Voc/Degree in
Fashion
&
Apparel
Technology from
U.G.C.
recognized
College/Universit
y with one-year
experience in the
relevant field.
OR
Diploma
(Minimum
2
years)
in
Garment
Fabrication
Technology/
Costume Design
& Dress making
from
recognized
board of technical
education
or
relevant
Advanced
Diploma
(Vocational) from
D.G.T. with two
years experience
in the relevant
field.
OR

TC/NAC
passed
in the trade of
"Sewing
Technology"
earlier named as
"Cutting
&
Sewing"
with
three
years
experience in the
relevant field.

4. The appellant possess a three
years' Diploma Certificate in Textile
Technology granted by the U.P. Technical
Education Board, Lucknow and he also
possesses a National Craft Instructor
Certificate issued by the National Council
for Vocational Training in 'Cutting and
Sewing' trade. His candidature was rejected
on the ground that he does not possess any
of the qualifications mentioned in Column
4 of the Appendix.

5. The appellant had submitted a
representation
for
considering
his
candidature by treating his qualification of
1 All. Saurabh Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors.
727
Diploma in Sewing and Cutting Trade as
equivalent to a Diploma in Costume Design
and Dress Making. This representation has
been rejected by an order dated 15.02.2024
passed by the U.P. Subordinate Service
Selection Commission, which order was
challenged before the Writ Court.

6. The Writ Court held that the
appellant does not possess any of the
eligibility qualifications for the post of
Instructor in Sewing Technology Trade
mentioned in the Appendix appended to the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Industrial
Training
Institutes
(Instructors
and
Foreman Instructors) Service Rules, 2021.
The appellant possesses a Diploma in
Textile Technology which is not mentioned
in Column 4 of the Appendix. The Writ
Court further held that the certificate issued
to the appellant by National Council for
Vocational Training after undergoing one
year training in Cutting and Sewing Trade
is not a recognized qualification under the
relevant rules.

7. The appellant filed a review
application stating that after dismissal of
the
Writ
Petition,
he
had
obtained
information from the Secretary, U.P.
Technical Educational Board to the effect
that Textile Technology and Costume
Design and Dress Making are equivalent
under
the
major
discipline
'Textile
Engineering'. The appellant claimed that he
has pursued a three years' Diploma course
in Textile Technology which is equivalent
to 'Costume Design and Dress Making'.

8. While deciding the review
application the Hon'ble Single Judge has
held that the information provided by the
Secretary of U.P. Technical Education
Board is nothing but his own interpretation
that it can be treated as equivalent to the
courses mentioned above and he has not
said that it is equivalent.

9. While assailing validity of the
orders passed by the Writ Court, the
learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the Secretary U.P. Technical
Education Board has provided a copy of
Annexure 7 to the Approval Process
Handbook, 2022-23 issued by All India
Council for Technical Education Board
containing a list of Diploma courses and
the relevant/appropriate branches and he
has stated that those can be treated as
equivalent. Annexure-7 appended to the
information provided by the Secretary of
U.P. Technical Education Board contains a
list of numerous major disciplines, their
corresponding
courses
and
relevant/appropriate branch of Diploma in
engineering
and
technology.
Textile
Engineering is mentioned as a major
discipline in this annexure and numerous
Diploma courses have been mentioned as
permissible for merger, including Textile
Technology and Costume Design & Dress
Making. On the strength of this document
the learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that as the appellant possesses a
Diploma in Textile Technology, it should be
treated as equivalent to a Diploma in
Garment Fabrication Technology / Costume
Design and Dress Making.

10. In support of his submission
the learned counsel for the appellant has
relied upon a decision rendered by an
Hon'ble Single Judge of Tripura High
Court in the case of Sri Subir Sutradhar
Vs. State of Tripura and two others:
2023 SCC OnLine Tri 183, wherein it was
held that a Degree of Bachelor of
Engineering in Construction Technology
and Management is equivalent to B.Tech
Civil Engineering.
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11. Per contra, Sri S.M. Singh
Royekwar, the learned counsel for the U.P.
Subordinate
Services
Selection
Commission,
has
submitted
that
equivalence of qualification for the purpose
of appointment is to be decided by the
employer in accordance with the relevant
Rules. The qualification held by the
petitioner
is
not
equivalent
to
the
qualification
mentioned
in
the
advertisement
as
per
the
provisions
contained in the Rules. He has placed
reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shifana P.S.
Vs. State of Kerala and others: (2024) 8
SCC 309 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has referred to numerous precedents
on the point and held as follows: -

"13. This Court in the case
of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and
Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad
and Others: (2019) 2 SCC 404 held
that judicial review can neither
expand the ambit of the prescribed
qualifications
nor
decide
the
equivalence
of
the
prescribed
qualifications with any other given
qualification.
Therefore,
the
equivalence of a qualification is
not
a
matter
that
can
be
determined in the exercise of the
power of judicial review. Whether
a particular qualification should
or should not be regarded as
equivalent is a matter for the
State, as the recruiting authority,
to determine.
(emphasis in original)
14. In Unnikrishnan CV
and Others v. Union of India and
Others: (2023) 18 SCC 546, a three
Judge Bench of this Court, while
relying upon the earlier judgment
in the case of Guru Nanak Dev
University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal
and Another: (2009) 1 SCC 610
held that equivalence is a technical
academic matter, it cannot be
implied or assumed. Any decision
of the academic body of the
University relating to equivalence
should be by specific order or
resolution, duly published."

12. In District Collector and
Chairman
Vijayanagaram
Vs.
M.
Tripura Sundari Devi: 1990 (3) SCC 655,
the respondent was appointed on a post of
post graduate teacher in Hindi but at the
time of scrutiny of documents it was found
that he did not possess the eligibility
qualification
mentioned
in
the
advertisement and she was not allowed to
join the service. Deciding the appeal, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: -

"6. It
must
further
be
realised by all concerned that when
an
advertisement
mentions
a
particular qualification and an
appointment is made in disregard
of the same, it is not a matter only
between the appointing authority
and the appointee concerned. The
aggrieved are all those who had
similar or even better qualifications
than the appointee or appointees
but who had not applied for the
post because they did not possess
the qualifications mentioned in the
advertisement. It amounts to a
fraud on public to appoint persons
with inferior qualifications in such
circumstances unless it is clearly
stated that the qualifications are
relaxable. No court should be a
party to the perpetuation of the
fraudulent practice. We are afraid
1 All. Saurabh Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors.
729
that the Tribunal lost sight of this
fact."

13. In Shifana P.S. (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon an
earlier judgment in the case of Zahoor
Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others: (2019) 2
SCC 404, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered numerous precedents on
the point and held as follows:

"26. We are in respectful
agreement with the interpretation
which has been placed on the
judgment in Jyoti KK [Jyoti K.K. v.
Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596] in the
subsequent
decision
in
Anita
(supra) [State of Punjab v. Anita,
(2015) 2 SCC 170]. The decision in
Jyoti KK turned on the provisions
of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a
rule, it would not be permissible to
draw an inference that a higher
qualification
necessarily
presupposes the acquisition of another,
albeit lower, qualification. The
prescription of qualifications for a
post is a matter of recruitment
policy. The state as the employer is
entitled
to
prescribe
the
qualifications as a condition of
eligibility. It is no part of the role
or function of judicial review to
expand upon the ambit of the
prescribed
qualifications.
Similarly,
equivalence
of
a
qualification is not a matter which
can be determined in exercise of
the power of judicial review.
Whether a particular qualification
should or should not be regarded
as equivalent is a matter for the
state, as the recruiting authority,
to determine. The decision in Jyoti
KK turned on a specific statutory
rule under which the holding of a
higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower
qualification. The absence of such
a rule in the present case makes a
crucial difference to the ultimate
outcome. In this view of the matter,
the Division Bench of the High
Court was justified in reversing the
judgment of the learned Single
Judge and in coming to the 10 id at
page 177 conclusion that the
appellants
did
not
meet
the
prescribed qualifications. We find
no error in the decision of the
Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the
qualifications for a post, the State,
as employer, may legitimately bear
in mind several features including
the nature of the job, the aptitudes
requisite
for
the
efficient
discharge
of
duties,
the
functionality of a qualification
and the content of the course of
studies which leads up to the
acquisition of a qualification. The
state
is
entrusted
with
the
authority to assess the needs of its
public services. Exigencies of
administration, it is trite law, fall
within
the
domain
of
administrative decision making.
The state as a public employer
may well take into account social
perspectives
that
require
the
creation
of
job
opportunities
across the societal structure. All
these are essentially matters of
policy. Judicial review must tread
warily. That is why the decision in
Jyoti KK must be understood in the
context of a specific statutory rule
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under which the holding of a higher
qualification which presupposes the
acquisition of a lower qualification
was considered to be sufficient for
the post. It was in the context of
specific rule that the decision in
Jyoti KK turned."
(Emphasis added)

14. In the present case the
advertisement states that the eligibility
qualification will be as per Column 4 of the
Appendix to the Uttar Pradesh Government
Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors and
Foreman Instructors) Service Rules, 2021,
which mentions a two years' Diploma in
Garment Fabrication Technology/Costume
Design & Dress making from a recognized
Board of Technical Education or relevant
Advanced Diploma (Vocational) from D.G.T.
with two years' experience in the relevant
field or NTC/NAC passed in the trade of
"Sewing Technology", earlier named as
"Cutting & Sewing", with three years'
experience in the relevant field. The appellant
does not possess any of the aforesaid
qualifications.

15. Although, the advertisement
mentioned that a candidate should have
passed
the
High
School
examination
conducted by the U.P. Intermediate Education
Board or any other examination recognized
by the State Government as equivalent
thereto, the clause of equivalence is not there
in respect of the qualification of Diploma.
Therefore, any person claiming to possess
any qualification equivalent to a Diploma in
Garment Fabrication Technology/Costume
Design & Dress Making or NTC/NAC
passed in the trade of "Sewing Technology",
would not be eligible to apply against the
advertisement.
16. Further, as per the law settled by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the question of
equivalence of qualification in the matter of
examining the eligibility for the purpose of
employment, is to be decided by the
employer and the Courts cannot treat any
qualification
to
be
equivalent
to
the
qualifications prescribed in the Rules and
mentioned in the advertisement. In case the
appellant's
claim
of
equivalence
of
qualification is allowed, all other similarly
situated persons, who did not apply as they
did not possess the qualification prescribed
by the Rules and mentioned in the
advertisement, would suffer discrimination
and injustice.

17. Therefore, we find ourselves in
complete agreement with the view taken by
Hon'ble Single Judge while dismissing the
writ petition.

18. The Special Appeal lacks merit
and the same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 730
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 296 of 2024

Kalamuddin @ Shanu ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sajjad Husain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Practice and Procedure - Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952 - Chapter VIII -
Rule 5 - Special Appeal - Maintainability -