# Shalu Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 552
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-13
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 26732 of 2019
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shalu-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48558
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Selection Process -
Selection for appointment of a candidate
is a valuable right. The right has to be
5 All. Shalu Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553
honored
without
deviating
from
the
principles of equality and equal treatment.
(Para 17)

Once the right of appointment having accrued
to the petitioner on equal basis was acted upon
in respect of the other OBC category selected
candidates, there is no reason as to why the
petitioner may not be extended the same
benefit with the issuance of appointment in her
favour. (Para 20)
Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

## Text

552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commission (SCC) on 17.09.2019. The
declaration given by the petitioner is as
follows:-

"I also declare that I do not stand
debarred by SSC/UPSC as on date and
never been convicted by any court of law, I
also declare that no charge sheet is
pending against me in any court of law.
Further declare that I have never been
dismissed or removed from Govt. Service or
my
service
been
terminated
during
probation."

27. He further submits that the
conduct of the petitioner in suppressing the
fact of his being embroiled in a criminal
case, impinges on his integrity whereas in a
sensitive department like the Canteen
Stores
Department,
the
respondents
required a person of the highest integrity
and, therefore, even applying law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Avtar
Singh,
the
decision
of
the
respondents taken on due application of
mind cancelling the appointment of the
petitioner on the ground of suppression
does not want any interference at the hands
of this Hon'ble Court, therefore, the petition
is liable to be dismissed.

28. In the facts of the present case, it is
admitted position that the petitioner was
juvenile as declared by the Board at the time
when the F.I.R. was lodged against him,
therefore, his case was to be dealt, taking into
consideration the provisions of Juvenile
Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act,
2000. Even if it is presume that the petitioner
had not disclosed about the pendency of the
criminal case, the requirement of disclosed
details of criminal prosecution faced as a
juvenile is violative of right to privacy and
right to reputation of child, guaranteed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
also denudes the child of protection sought by
the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, hence, it was
not expected from the petitioner to disclose
details of criminal prosecution faced as a
juvenile.

29. Admittedly, the petitioner has been
acquitted in the present case and the case so
lodged against him was trivial in nature and
should not be viewed as disqualification for
entry in Government service.

30. In view of the above discussion, the
impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and
unsustainable in the eyes of law.

31. The writ petition stands allowed.
The impugned order dated 24.11.2021 passed
by respondent no.3 is set aside and the
mandamus is issued to the respondents to
issue appointment letter to the petitioner, in
accordance with law as well as in the light of
observations made hereinabove.
----------
(2022)05ILR A552
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

Writ-A No. 26732 of 2019

Shalu Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sunil Kumar, Vikrant Prakash

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Selection Process -
Selection for appointment of a candidate
is a valuable right. The right has to be
5 All. Shalu Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553
honored
without
deviating
from
the
principles of equality and equal treatment.
(Para 17)

Once the right of appointment having accrued
to the petitioner on equal basis was acted upon
in respect of the other OBC category selected
candidates, there is no reason as to why the
petitioner may not be extended the same
benefit with the issuance of appointment in her
favour. (Para 20)
Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Rahul Shukla learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State.

2. The process of recruitment in a
level playing field is bound to be tested
on the touchstone of equality in every
case. This is what Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India guarantee to every
participating candidate in the selection
process.

3.

In
the
present
case,
the
advertisement for filling up the posts of
Constable(Female)
in
the
police
department U.P. were advertised by the
Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and
Promotion Board on 29.12.2015, pursuant
to which, the petitioner applied and her
application form having been found
complete in all respects was scrutinized
and included in the process of selection.
The petitioner in the application form had
identified
her
candidature
as
OBC
category candidate on the basis of a
validly issued certificate in her favour on
4.2.2016. There is specific mention of the
category
i.e.
OBC
relating
to
the
petitioner in her application form. The
petitioner was included in the selection
process as OBC category candidate. The
process of selection for the purposes of
evaluation
of
merit
comprised
of
assessment of marks based on her
performance in the high school and
intermediate besides in the physical
efficiency test. In the final evaluation of
marks
on
the
basis
of parameters
prescribed for selection, the petitioner
admittedly has scored 417.9 marks. As
per the process of selection all the
selected candidates on the basis of their
final selection based on merit are
subjected to document verification and
physical
standard
test.
This
is
an
independent process passing which final
select list in the respective categories is
drawn. The petitioner having qualified on
the basis of merit in OBC category was
subjected to the documents verification
test and physical standard test on
20.7.2017.

4. This Court having regard to
paragraph 14 and 15 of the writ petition
read in conjunction with paragraph 8 of
the short counter affidavit passed an order
on 12.4.2022. The order passed on
12.4.2022 reads as under :-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State.

Denial
of
appointment
to
the
petitioner though selected appears to be
grossly discriminatory.

Let
Additional
Secretary(Recruitment), Uttar Pradesh
Police Recruitment and Promotion Board
appear before this Court along with the
relevant record of the case tomorrow at
10.30 a.m.

List/put up tomorrow i.e. 13.4.2022
at 10.30 a.m.
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Learned Standing Counsel undertakes
to communicate a copy of this order to the
Principal Secretary(Recruitment), Uttar
Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion
Board during course of the day".

5. Pursuant to the order passed by this
Court
on
12.4.2022,
Sri
Sureshwar,
Additional Secretary(Recruitment), Uttar
Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion
Board is present in person along with the
relevant record. The photocopies of the
relevant record are kept on file.

6. This Court has taken pain to go
through the record emperically.

7.

Sri
Rahul
Shukla,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also
elaborated the position ably in the light of
the record.

8. The Court would gather that the
committee while verifying the documents
produced by the petitioner has recorded the
details as under :-

UTTAR PRADESH POLICE
RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION
BOARD

Direct Recruitment of Constable and
Equivalent Posts-2015

DV Report
ROLL
NO
00041136 GENDER
Female
NAME SHALU
VERMA
FATHER/H
USBAND
NAME
SHIV KUMAR
DOB
20/02/197
9
AGE
18
Year(s)
4
Month(s)9 Day(s)
DOMI
CILE
OF U.P.
Yes
GOVT.
EMPLOYE
E
No
CATE
GORY
GENER
AL
CATEGO
RY
No
CERTIFIC
ATE
DFF
No
DOEACCOE
No
HOMEGUAR
D
No
NCC-B
No
T
ARMY
No
TWELFTH
MARKS %
77.2
TENTH
MARK
S %
79.5
QUALIFYI
NG
MARKS %
210.17
CALC
ULATE
D
AS
PER
RULE
15(b)
233.9
REJECT
REMARKS

Qualified

ORIGINAL
MODIFIED
AND
VERIFIED
GENDER
Female
Female
NAME
SHALU
VERMA
SHALU
VERMA
FATHER/HUSB
AND NAME
SHIV KUMAR SHIV KUMAR
D.O.B.
20/02/1997
20/02/1997
AGE
18 Year(s) 4
Month(s)
9
Day(s)
18 Year(s) 4
Month(s)
9
Day(s)
DOMICILE OF
U.P.
Yes
Yes
GOVT.
EMPLOYEE
No
No
CATEGORY
OBC

 GENERAL
DFF
No

No

EXSERVICEMAN
No
No
HOME-GUARD No
No
5 All. Shalu Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
DOEACC-OE
No
No
T ARMY
No
No
NCC-B
No
No
TENTH
MARKS%
0
79.5
TWELVTH
MARKS%
77.2
77.2
CALCULATED
AS PER RULE
15(B)%
154.4
233.9
Sd/-
Candidate Signature : Shalu Verma

Sd/-
Member-1
DV/PST
DAL
Seal
with Name
and Post
Sd/-
Member-1
DV/PST
DAL
Seal
with
Name
and Post
Sd/-
Member-1
DV/PST
DAL
Seal
with Name
and Post
Sd/-
Member1
DV/PST
DAL Seal
with
Name and
Post

9. The physical standard test was
conducted on the date of document
verification wherein the petitioner's height
was recorded less by one inch which was
corrected on her protest and this fact is
recorded in the physical standard test. Both
the physical standard test reports are
extracted below:-

1. UTTAR PRADESH POLICE
RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION
BOARD

Direct Recruitment of Constable
and Equivalent Posts-2015

PST Report

ROLL
NO
00041136
GENDER
Female
NAME
SHALU
VERMA
CATEGORY GENERAL

PHYSICAL STANDARD TEST
HEIGHT(CM)
151
WEIGHT(KG)
42.3
NORMAL
CHEST(CM)
NA
EXPANDED
CHEST(CM)
NA
CHEST
EXPANSION(C
M)
NA

NOT QUALIFIED

Candidate Signature : Shalu Verma

Sd/-
Member-1
DV/PST
DAL
Seal with Name
and
Post

Sd/-
Member-1
DV/PST DAL
Seal with Name
and Post
Sd/-
Membe
r-1
DV/PS
T DAL
Seal
with
Name
and
Post
Sd/-
Mem
ber-1
DV/P
ST
DAL
Seal
with
Name
and
Post

FOR
MALE
FOR FEMALE
FOR
GENE
RAL/O
BC/SC
Categor
ies.
Height
must be
more
than
168
cms.
Normal
Chest
must be
more
than 79
cms
FOR
GENERAL/OBC/SC
Categories
Height must be more than 152 cms
FOR
ST
Categor
y
Height
must be
more
FOR
ST
Category
Height must be more than 147 cms.
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
than
160
cms
Normal
Chest
must be
more
than 77
cms
Minimu
m
5
CM
expansi
on
is
require
d
Weight must be more than 40 kgs(All
categories)
WeightNA
Chest-NA

2.
UTTAR
PRADESH
POLICE
RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION
BOARD
Direct Recruitment of Constable and
Equivalent Posts-2015
PST Report

ROLL
NO
00041136
GENDER
Female
NAME
SHALU
VERMA
CATEGORY GENERAL

PHYSICAL STANDARD TEST
HEIGHT(CM)
152
WEIGHT(KG) 42.4
NORMAL
CHEST(CM)
NA
EXPANDED
CHEST(CM)
NA
CHEST
EXPANSION(CM)
NA

QUALIFIED
Sd/-
Candidate Signature : Shalu Verma

Sd/-
Member-1
DV/PST
DAL
Seal
with
Name
Sd/-
Member-1
DV/PST
DAL
Seal
with
Name
Sd/-
Member-1
DV/PST
DAL
Seal
with
Name
Sd/-
Mem
ber-1
DV/P
ST
and Post
and Post
and Post
DAL
Seal
with
Name
and
Post

FOR MALE
FOR FEMALE
FOR
GENERAL/OBC/SC
Categories.
Height must be more
than 168 cms.
Normal Chest must
be more than 79 cms
FOR
GENERAL/OBC/SC
Categories
Height must be more than
152 cms
FOR ST Category
Height must be more
than 160 cms
Normal Chest must
be more than 77 cms
FOR ST Category
Height must be more than
147 cms.
Minimum
5
CM
expansion is required
Weight must be more than 40
kgs(All categories)
Weight-NA
Chest-NA

10. Shri Rahul Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State
while
explaining
the
document
verification report has argued that category
entry in the chart as 'General' is an implicit
consequence of the failure on the part of the
petitioner to produce her original category
certificate dated 4.2.2016. The report would
have treated the petitioner as ''OBC' if the
original certificate as mentioned in the
application form submitted online was
produced on the date fixed. The argument
put-forth does have force particularly when
the petitioner is a signatory to the above
report but what is relevant to be noticed is the
case pleaded by the petitioner, in response to
which, the Court does not find a satisfactory
or well supported reply emerging from the
original record produced before the Court.

11. In paragraph 14 and 15 of the writ
petition, it is a clear case of the petitioner
5 All. Shalu Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
557
that she had appeared before the committee
for documents verification on 20.7.2017. It
is also averred by her that the original
certificate submitted along with the online
application form was produced by her at
the time of document verification. It is
further
submitted
that
the
previous
certificate of category issued to the
petitioner was also available with her of
which the copy on being demanded by the
authorities was duly supplied. The original
category certificate of the relevant date i.e.
4.2.2016 has been produced before this
Court by the petitioner as well.

12. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ
petition
being
relevant
are
extracted
hereunder :

"14. That on 20.07.2016 petitioner
duly appeared in the documents verification
and physical standard test at Police Lines,
Sultanpur
along
with
her
original
educational document, caste certificate
dated 04.02.2016(Annexure No. 4) and
Domicile
certificate
dated
04.02.2016(Annexure No. 5) and other
relevant
documents. At
the
time
of
document
verification
petitioner
duly
submitted
photocopies
of
the
same
document before the authority concerned.
Authority concerned duly verified the
photocopies from the original document
and accepted the same.

15. That it is also very relevant to
mention here that at the time of document
verification authority concerned required
additional another certificate of category
and domicile, which have also available
with the petitioner, in bona-fide manner
petitioner has also produced as additional
documents as required by the authority
concerned i.e. Category certificate no.
460631401937 dated 24.8.2014 issued by
the competent authority. True copy of the
additional
Category
certificate
No.
460631401937 dated 24.8.2014 issued by
the competent authority is being filed
herewith and marked as annexure no. 7".

13. In paragraph 8 of the short counter
affidavit, the following stand was adopted
by the State in reply to the case set up by
the petitioner :-

"8. That the scrutiny of documents and
physical standard test of petitioner Shalu
Verma was taken by a committee presided
by the Sub-divisional Magistrate in Police
Linces, District Sultanpur on 20.7.2016, in
which petitioner had submitted OBC caste
certificate
no.
460631401937
dated
24.8.2014 which was different from that
OBC caste certificate no. 466163000425
dated 04.02.2016 as applied in the online
application. After submission of the OBC
caste certificate of different dated from the
originally applied in online application,
which
is
issued
before
the
fixed
period(issued on or after 01.04.2015 but
issued till the last date 24.02.2016 fixed for
registration of this recruitment process),
before the Examination Committee, the
Examination
Committee
rejected
the
certificate and considered the petitioner as
a General Category candidate. Members of
the Committee as well as petitioner are
also agreed and signed on the report of the
Examination Committee which is annexed
as Annexure No. 2. Petitioner has obtained
total
417.9
marks
(79.5+154.40+184=417.9) in accordance
with Rules. Cut-off marks of last selected
candidate of General category(Women) for
the post of Police Constables is 418.77.
Petitioner is not selected due to lower
marks obtained by her in comparison with
that of the last selected candidate of
general category for the post of Police
Constables".
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. On a close scrutiny of the stand
spelt out in the short counter affidavit, it is
evident that the reason of non-production
of category certificate i.e. OBC dated
4.2.2016 does not find mention in the
documents verification report reproduced
herein-above meaning thereby that the
version set out in paragraph 8 of the short
counter affidavit has no documentary
support from the original record. The entry
of details in the DV report unless
maintained by the competent committee for
cross check cannot be assumed to be a
gospel truth. No record to cross check the
details in the DV report were maintained by
the
committee
except
the
signature
obtained on the report. Any reason spelt out
in the counter affidavit must find support
from the original record without which an
improbable ground has no legs to stand in
the eyes of law. The mere mention of the
petitioner's category in the upper part of
DV report as 'General' and 'No' in the last
column does not reconcile with any reason
spelt out by the committee. It is highly
improbable that a selected candidate would
make no effort to produce the relevant
certificate or even if she fails to produce,
why would she not seek time for
production of an existing document.

15. The question as to whether the
petitioner produced the original OBC
certificate dated 4.2.2016 or not has to be
tested from the original record. There are
two aspects relevant for this purpose.
Firstly, the authorities must show as to
what number of documents were duly
received
for
verification
and
which
documents a candidate failed to produce. In
the event of failure, whether a candidate
demanded an opportunity or not.

16. This Court fails to understand as
to why a candidate who has rightly
mentioned the category certificate i.e.
OBC of a particular date i.e. 4.2.2016
would
firstly
submit
the
irrelevant
certificate and secondly may not produce
the relevant certificate at the time of
documents verification. The petitioner's
height was also recorded less by one inch
which was corrected on her protest and
this fact is recorded in the physical
standard test report placed before us. In
absence of any plausible justification
recorded in the documents verification
report except the baseless consequence of
failure,
the
very
stand
adopted
in
paragraph 8 of the short counter affidavit
is wholly unfounded and unsupported on
the
basis
of
any
tangible
proof.
Interestingly the DV report is in two parts.
The second part on the top records
''Qualified'. It is not spelt out in the first
part as to what number of documents were
checked and which of those were not
produced. There is no clarity of the
documents which were checked nor there
is any such mention in the fist part of DV
report as to what number of documents
were verified and which of those were not
produced. As to how the modified or
verified
category was
mentioned
as
''General' instead of OBC, there is no
supporting material or a reason available
on record. The stand adopted in the short
counter affidavit is afterthought, dubious
and misleading.

17. This Court would caution the
administrative authorities not to swear
affidavits on oath adopting a stand
untraceable to the original record. This is
an unhealthy practice and amounts to an
abuse of administrative power. Selection
for appointment of a candidate is a valuable
right. This right has to be honored without
deviating from the principles of equality
and equal treatment.
5 All. Bhagwati Deen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
559

18. In the present case, it is clear that
the cut-off marks of general category
candidates are shown to be above 418.77
whereas the cut-off marks for OBC stood at
410.6. On the basis of marks obtained by
the petitioner while belonging to the OBC
category, she has clearly qualified the
benchmark and she is thus entitled to be
included amongst the selected candidates of
OBC category. Once a candidate having
410.6 marks was appointed, as to why a
candidate obtaining 417.9 marks may not
have
a
preferential
right
remains
inexplicable by the State. The individual
right which had accrued to the petitioner
was not open to be frustrated on the
strength of any irrelevant document of
which the production does not seem to be
in the course of prudent behaviour
particularly when there is no mention in the
original record that the petitioner had failed
to produce the original OBC category
certificate dated 4.2.2016. The recording of
consequence i.e. ''General' unless backed
by an authentic proof of failure to produce
the category certificate, in my humble view,
is an arbitrary act falling within the scope
of judicial review and the Court would not
shut the doors of justice in a case like the
one at hand.

19. The record does not support the
case of the State which was carefully
examined. The Court has extracted the
entire details of documents verification and
physical standard test reports herein-above.

20. In the result, once the right of
appointment
having
accrued
to
the
petitioner on equal basis was acted upon in
respect of the other OBC category selected
candidates, there is no reason as to why the
petitioner may not be extended the same
benefit with the issuance of appointment in
her favour.

21. This Court accordingly directs the
competent authority to proceed with the
benefit of selection including notional
seniority as has accrued to the petitioner at
par with the other selected candidates
having equal merit or less.

22. This exercise shall be carried out
not later than a period of six weeks from
the date a certified copy of this order is
served to the competent authority along
with the representation.

23. The writ petition is allowed with
no order as to cost.
----------
(2022)05ILR A559
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ- B No. 1528 of 1983

Bhagwati Deen ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
M. Sultan, R.R. Dev, Ripu Daman Shahi, Vijai
Bahadur Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.P. Shukla, Saryu Prasad Tiwari

(A) Land Law - The Uttar Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 9-A (2) , 11 (1) , 30 , 48 - The
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 20 , 20
(b) , 209 , 229-B , 240 , 240 (J) , 240 (A)
to 240 (M) , 240 (H) (2) (a) -The U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 28 & 33 -
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Consolidation
of
Holdings, Rules, 1954 - Rule 109 , 109-A -
a person who claims adhivasi rights, his
name must have been recorded in 1356