# Shikhar Agrawal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 388
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-09-23
- **Case number:** WRIT - A No. 5576 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shashi Kant Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Pachori
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shikhar-agrawal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45348
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - U.P. Judicial Service
Rules, 2001; U.P. Judicial Service (Second
Amendment) Rules, 2012 - Rule 20(3) -
Process of selection/Preparation of waitlist The Commission after undertaking the
process
of
examination/interview
is
obliged to prepare a list of finally selected
candidates alongwith a wait-list in order
of
their
proficiency
as
disclosed
by
aggregate of marks finally awarded to
each candidate in the written examination
and the interview. The wait-list is to be
utilized only in case, the candidates in the
select list do not join the posts and shall
not
be
utilized
for
any
subsequent
vacancies.

Petitioner states that the respondent No. 1 had
issued
an
advertisement
dated
11.9.2018
inviting applications from eligible candidates for
U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Examination,

## Text

388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
majority institutions as well as to the
minority institutions."

18. More so learned Single Judge has
rightly highlighted in the operative portion
of the judgment that in the present case, it
is the Management which has proceeded to
annul the appointment of the petitioners. It
does not assert or contend that its rights to
administer
and
manage
have
been
interfered with. Bearing in mind the serious
irregularities from which the selection
process stood tainted, learned Single Judge
has rightly dismissed the writ petitions.

19.

Considering
the
fact
and
circumstances, the Court does not find any
infirmity or illegality in the judgment
passed by learned Single Judge. Present
special
appeals
sans
merit
and
are
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)10ILR A388
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

WRIT - A No. 5576 of 2020

Shikhar Agrawal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri M.N. Singh,
Sri Rahul Srivastava

A. Service Law - U.P. Judicial Service
Rules, 2001; U.P. Judicial Service (Second
Amendment) Rules, 2012 - Rule 20(3) -
Process of selection/Preparation of waitlist The Commission after undertaking the
process
of
examination/interview
is
obliged to prepare a list of finally selected
candidates alongwith a wait-list in order
of
their
proficiency
as
disclosed
by
aggregate of marks finally awarded to
each candidate in the written examination
and the interview. The wait-list is to be
utilized only in case, the candidates in the
select list do not join the posts and shall
not
be
utilized
for
any
subsequent
vacancies.

Petitioner states that the respondent No. 1 had
issued
an
advertisement
dated
11.9.2018
inviting applications from eligible candidates for
U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Examination,
2018.
The
final
result
of
Examination was declared on 20.07.2019 in
which cutoff marks for General Category was
560 wherein the petitioner had obtained 559
marks. The petitioner further states that
candidates selected under General Category,
have joined or have been selected elsewhere.
(Para 4, 5)

The petitioner sought information under RTI Act
regarding his placement in waiting list but no
such information has been supplied. The appeal
filed on 11.11.2019 is still pending. The
respondents have also not cancelled the
candidature of the candidates, who failed to join
the post as advertised. (Para 6)

Respondents have failed to show that any
waiting list as envisaged under Rule 20 sub-rule
(3) has been prepared, to fill up the vacancies
rendered vacant on account of non-joining of
the selected candidates within a specified
period. (Para 7, 8)

Writ petition disposed of with the directions to
the commission to forward the list of wait listed
candidates against each category and to fill up
posts that have not been utilized in any
subsequent recruitment, strictly in accordance
with the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules,
2001, within the specified time. (Para 10). ( E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Nadeem Anwar Vs State of U.P & anr., (2016)
2 UPLBEC 1391 (Para 7)
10 All. Shikhar Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
389
2. Ritu Chaudhary & 2 ors. Vs St. of U.P., Writ A
No. 1641 of 2020, decided on 31.01.2020 (Para 7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

1. This writ petition is being disposed
of finally at the stage of admission with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed,
inter-alia, for the following reliefs:-

i. issue a writ, order, or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent authorities to fill the post of
Civil Judge ( Junior Division ) under
General
Category
pursuance
to
Advertisement dated 29.7.2016 from 10 %
waiting list envisaged under Rule 20(3) of
U.P. Judicial service ( Second Amendment
) Rules, 2012.

3. Heard Sri Sidharth Khare, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.3 and Sri Deepak Mishra,
learned A.G.A.

4. The instant writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner stating therein that
the
respondent
no.1
had
issued
an
advertisement
(Annexure
No.1)
dated
11.09.2018
inviting
application
from
eligible candidates for U.P. Judicial Service
Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination,
2018
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"Examination, 2018"). The total number of
vacancies advertised were 610 across all
categories. The recruitment to the post of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) is governed
by Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules,
2001 ( Annexure No.2) ( hereinafter
referred to as "Rules").The final result of
Examination was declared on 20.07.2019 in
which cutoff marks for General Category
was 560 wherein the petitioner had
obtained 559 marks (Annexure Nos. 5 and
6 respectively). The following candidates
of aforesaid "Examination, 2018" have
already been selected under General
Category on the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) pursuant to the advertisement
dated 11.09.2018:-

Serial
No.
Name
of
the
Candidate
s
Roll number of the
candidates ( In U.P.)
1.
Abhinav
Singh
049571
2.
Shivangi
Vyas
032535
3.
Arvind
Dev
003769
4.
Shruti Jain 017455
5.
Harshvard
han Dhakar
000586
6.
Surbhi
Singhania
008854
7.
Kumar
Shivam
009084
8.
Preeti
000420
9.
Ruchi
Kaushik
040957
10.
Ajeet
Kumar
Mishra
013651

5. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further states that the candidate
mentioned at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 of
the aforesaid list have already joined in
Delhi Judicial Services, the candidates
mentioned at serial nos. 4 and 5 have joined
in M.P. Judicial Services, the candidates
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mentioned at serial nos. 6 and 7 have also
joined Bihar Judicial Service and the
candidates mentioned at Serial Nos. 9 and
10 of the aforesaid list have also been
selected elsewhere.

6. By means of an application dated
17.09.2019 under Right to Information Act,
the petitioner sought information regarding
his placement in waiting list but no such
information has been supplied to the
petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal on
11.11.2019 but the said appeal has not been
decided till date. The respondents have also
not cancelled the candidature of the
candidates, who failed to join the post as
advertised above.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment rendered
another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Nadeem Anwar Vs. State of U.P. and
another (2016) 2 UPLBEC 1391 and
argued that the respondent no. 2 has not
prepared any waiting list as envisaged
under Rule 20 sub-rule (3) of the second
Amendment of U.P. Judicial Service Rules,
2012 and to fill up the vacancies rendered
vacant on account of non-joining of the
selected candidates within a specified
period. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also relied upon the judgment passed in
Writ
A
No.
1641
of
2020,
Ritu
Chaudhary and two others Vs. State of
U.P. decided on 31.1.2020.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents despite advancing elaborate
arguments, have failed to show that any
waiting list as contemplated under Section
20 sub-section (3) of the amended rules has
been prepared

9. In order to appreciate the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties , it would be useful to extract
Rules 20 and 21 of the Rules herein below :

"20. List of candidate approved
by the Commission.- (1) After the result of
written examination is prepared, the
Commission shall call for interview such
number of candidates, who in the opinion
of the Commission have secured minimum
marks as may be fixed by the Commission
in this respect.

(2) Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in any rules or
orders, the Commission shall invite a
sitting Judge of the Court to be nominated
by the Chief Justice to participate in the
interview of the candidates called under
sub-rule (1) and the opinion given by him
with regard to the suitability of the
candidates shall not be disregarded by the
Commission unless there are strong and
cogent reasons for not accepting the
opinion which reasons must be recorded in
writing by the Commission.

(3) The Commission then shall
prepare a final list of selected candidates in
order of their proficiency as disclosed by
aggregate of marks finally awarded to each
candidate in the written examination and
the interview.

Note-- The wait list shall be
prepared category-wise, i.e. for Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled
Tribes
and
other
categories. The wait-list shall be utilized
only in case, the candidates in the select list
do not join the posts and shall not utilized
for any subsequent vacancies.

Provided that if two or more
candidates obtain equal marks in the
aggregate, the name of the candidate being
elder in age, shall be placed higher:

Provided further that if two or
more candidates of equal age obtain equal
marks in the aggregate, the name of the
candidate, who has obtained higher marks
10 All. Praveen Kumar Vs. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad & Anr.
391
in the written examination, shall be placed
higher.

21. Appointment to the service.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2),
the Governor shall, on receipt of the list of
candidates submitted by the Commission
under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20, make
appointment on the post of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) in the order in which
their names are given in the list provided
the
Governors
is
satisfied
that
the
Candidate is otherwise qualified and
entitled for such appointment under these
rules. (2) The select list prepared under
sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 shall lapse after all
the vacancies advertised or varied after
due notification, are filled up."

10. There is nothing on record which
may indicate that in terms of Rule 20(3) of
the "Rules",the vacancies which remain
underutilized due to non-joining of the
candidates, as mentioned in the list, have
been released by a subsequent recruitment.

11. In view of the above, we dispose
of the writ petition with the following
directions to respondent no. 2 (U.P. Public
Service Commission ):-

i) That the Commission shall
forward the list of wait listed candidates
against each category, keeping vertical and
horizontal reservation in mind within 30
days from the date of filing of certified
copy of this order before it.

ii) Further, if such posts have not
been
utilized
in
any
subsequent
recruitment, the commission shall fill up
the said posts strictly in accordance with
the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules,
2001, which could not be filled up, in order
to merits of the wait listed candidates,
within a further period of 60 day and
submit compliance report to the Registrar
General of this Court within 75 days from
today.

12. With the aforesaid direction, the
writ petition, is, finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)10ILR A391
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

WRIT - A No. 6238 of 2020

Praveen Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court,
Allahabad & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Moti Lal Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Chandan Sharma

A. Service Law - Opportunity for interview
and verification of documents - An
advertisement inviting applications for
examination or recruitment is merely an
invitation to offer and not an offer itself. If
the postal rule is made applicable in matters of
inviting
applications
to
appear
for
an
examination
or
for
an
interview,
and
applications are to be sent by post, even if one
application does not reach in time on account of
postal delay to scrap the examination or hold
special examination in such cases would
produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity.

Even if principle of contract regarding offer and
acceptance is applicable, then in that case as
soon as an offerer dispatches its offer, his duty
is over. It is only required to be seen whether
such offer was made within the prescribed
period or not.

In the present case, a question arose before this
Court that whose fault is this by which the