# Shiv Charan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 784
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 5280 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-charan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-53638
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C., Vineet Kumar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility
to
challenge
the
rule
of
normalization as provided in the advertisement,
after when the petitioners have participated in
recruitment process and they failed to find place
in select list.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Recruitment - Post of
Technician Grade - 2 -Advertisement
issued with the provision of preparing the
merit list after adoption of rule of
'normalization' - Petitioner participated in
recruitment process and when their name
was
not
found
in
select
list,
they
challenged the rules of 'normalization' -
Permissibility :
Held : All petitioners were well aware that final
merit list will be prepared on basis of marks
obtained after normalization as well as it was
also specifically mentioned that normalization
method will be applied on both examinations,
i.e., first and second part - When with open
eyes petitioners have participated in recruitment
process, they cannot challenge the rules of
game after the game was over. [Paras 10 and
12] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar and
others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706; State of U.P.
and others v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi and others,
(2022) 11 SCC 578; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Pankaj Kumar, (2022) 1 SCC 335 - referred
to.
List of Keywords
Recruitment process; Normalization; select list;
Cut off marks; Challenge to condition of
advertisement;
Raw
marks;
Unsuccessful
candidates; Selection process.
Case Arising From
The grievance not finding place in final select
list prepared for the post of Technician Grade -

## Text

784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

IV. Ensure opportunity of hearing to
rival claimants.

V. Pass reasoned orders on the
controversy.

38. The rules may also provide for
mediation between the parties.

39. With the aforesaid observations
the writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 784
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ-A No. 5280 of 2019
Alongwith other connected cases

Shiv Charan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Seemant Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C., Vineet Kumar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility
to
challenge
the
rule
of
normalization as provided in the advertisement,
after when the petitioners have participated in
recruitment process and they failed to find place
in select list.
Headnotes
(A) Service law - Recruitment - Post of
Technician Grade - 2 -Advertisement
issued with the provision of preparing the
merit list after adoption of rule of
'normalization' - Petitioner participated in
recruitment process and when their name
was
not
found
in
select
list,
they
challenged the rules of 'normalization' -
Permissibility :
Held : All petitioners were well aware that final
merit list will be prepared on basis of marks
obtained after normalization as well as it was
also specifically mentioned that normalization
method will be applied on both examinations,
i.e., first and second part - When with open
eyes petitioners have participated in recruitment
process, they cannot challenge the rules of
game after the game was over. [Paras 10 and
12] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar and
others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706; State of U.P.
and others v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi and others,
(2022) 11 SCC 578; State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Pankaj Kumar, (2022) 1 SCC 335 - referred
to.
List of Keywords
Recruitment process; Normalization; select list;
Cut off marks; Challenge to condition of
advertisement;
Raw
marks;
Unsuccessful
candidates; Selection process.
Case Arising From
The grievance not finding place in final select
list prepared for the post of Technician Grade -
2.

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

1.

The
Electricity
Service
Commission,
U.P.
Power
Corporation
Limited, issued an Advertisement dated
17.02.2018
for
initiating
recruitment
process to fill up 664 vacant posts of
Technician Grade-2 Electric (Trainee) in
U.P.
Power
Transmission
Corporation
Limited
and
2115
vacant
posts
of
Technician Grade-2 Electric (Trainee) in
7 All. Shiv Charan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
785
U.P. Power Corporation Limited. Relevant
part of Advertisement, which are essential
to decide the controversy involve in present
cases, is reproduced hereinafter:

"ववज्ञावपत पद पर आवेदकों की संख्या अवधक होिे
की वस्थवत में ऑि-लाइि परीक्षा (CBT) एक से अवधक पावलयों
/वदवसों में कराई जाएगी। वववभन्द्ि विफ्ट के प्रश्नपत्ों के मुल्यांकि के
पश्चात Normalization method (CBTके प्रथम एवं
वद्वतीय भाग में) श्रेष्ठ्ता विधाषरण में प्रयक्त होगा।"

XXX

"11. चयन प्रक्रिया: चयि वलवखत परीक्षा
(CBT) के आधार पर वकया जायेगा। वलवखत परीक्षा का प्रश्न पत्
दो भागों का होगा, वजसकी अववध 03 घंटे की होगी:-

प्रथम भाग:-

(1) प्रथम भाग की वलवखत परीक्षा में NIELIT
के "CCC" स्तर का कम्प्यूटर ज्ञाि से सम्बवन्द्धत वस्तुविष्ठ प्रकार
का प्रश्न पत् होगा वजसमें 50 प्रश्न होगे। प्रत्येक प्रश्न 01 अंक का
होगा अथाषत यह परीक्षा अवधकतम 50 अंकों की होगी। प्रत्येक
गलत उत्तर के वलये ऋणात्मक 1/4 अंक प्रदाि वकये जायेंगे अथाषत
1/4 अंक की अवतररक्त कटौती की जायेगी।

(2) कम्प्यूटर ज्ञाि की प्रथम भाग की परीक्षा में कम
से कम 20 अंक प्राप्त करिा अविवायष होगा अन्द्यथा की वस्थवत में
सम्बवन्द्धत अभ्यथी को अहष ि मािते हुये उसकी वलवखत परीक्षा के
वद्वतीय भाग का मूल्यांकि िहीं वकया जायेगा।

(3) कम्प्यूटर ज्ञाि के प्रथम भाग में अवजषत अंक
श्रेष्ठता (मेररट) विधाषरण हेतु जोडे िहीं जायेंगे।

क्रितीय भाग:-

वद्वतीय भाग में विम्िांवकत पाठ्यक्रम से सम्बवन्द्धत
वस्तुविष्ठ प्रकार का प्रश्न पत् होगा वजिके अवधकतम अंक सम्मुख
अंवकत है। प्रत्येक प्रश्न 01 अंक का होगा एवं प्रत्येक गलत उत्तर के
वलये ऋणात्मक 1/4 अंक प्रदाि वकये जायेंगे अथाषत 1/4 अंक की
अवतररक्त कटौती की जायेगी।

क्र0
सं0
पाठ्यक्रम
प्रश्नों
की
संख्या
अवधकतम
अंक
1
सामान्द्य अध्ययि एवं तावकषक ज्ञाि
20
20
2
सामान्द्य वहन्द्दी (हाईस्कूल सामान्द्य
स्तर)
15
15
3
सामान्द्य
अंग्रेजी
(हाईस्कूल
सामान्द्य स्तर)
15
15
4
तकिीकी ववर्यक ज्ञाि
150
150

कुल
200

िोटः- चयि हेतु वद्वतीय भाग की परीक्षा में कम से 33.5%
प्रवतित अंक प्राप्त करिा अविवायष होगा अथाषत ऐसे अभ्यथी जो
67 अंक से कम अंक प्राप्त करेंगे वे चयि प्रवक्रया से बाहर हो
जायेंगे।"

2. All petitioners before this Court,
being qualified to participate in above
referred recruitment process, have appeared
in both part of online examination, i.e., first
and second. Most of the petitioners were
qualified in first part of examination,
therefore, their marks of second part were
calculated. Normalization was applied
firstly on raw marks of first part of
examination who scored more than 20
marks and subsequently on raw marks of
second part of examination. Admittedly,
petitioners' marks obtained in second part
of examination, after normalization, were
less than the cut off marks, therefore, they
were not selected in final select list dated
08.03.2019 issued by Secretary, Electricity
Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power
Corporation Limited, Lucknow.

3.

In
aforesaid
circumstances,
petitioners have approached this Court and
the prayers made in leading writ petition,
i.e., Writ-A No. 5280 of 2019, are
reproduced hereinafter:

"a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari calling
for the record and quashing the impugned
final select list dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure
No.7 to the Writ Petition) issued by
Secretary, Electricity Service Commission,
Lucknow, prepared on the basis of merit
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after having been successful in document
verification.

b) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to redrew the final select the
dated 08.03.2019 by applying the process
of normalization uniformly as it has been
applied in respect of candidates having
appeared in online written examination
(computer based test) in first and second
shifts on 25.01.2019 or in alternative final
select list dated 08.03.2019 may be
redrawn on the basis of raw marks
obtained by the candidates in online
written examination (computer based test)
without applying process of normalization
in selection of Technician Grade-2 Electric
(Trainee) in pursuance of the advertisement
dated 17.02.2018 issued by the Secretary,
Electricity Service Commission, Lucknow,

c) Issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.

d) Award the cost of the writ
petition to the petitioners."

4. In other connected writ petitions
similar reliefs were sought.

5. Sri Seemant Singh and Sri Vipul
Kumar
Dubey,
learned
counsel
for
petitioners, have argued at length and crux
of
their
arguments
are
mentioned
hereinafter:

(a) Recruitment was conducted in
terms of regulation dated 03.07.2017 issued
for
U.P. Power
Corporation Limited
wherein entire procedure was mentioned,
however, there application of normalization
was not referred. This fact has not been
denied by learned counsel for respondents.
Counsel for rival parties have also not
disputed that in the same regulation it was
specifically mentioned as follows:

"3. परीक्षा प्रवक्रया से सम्बवन्द्धत अन्द्य ऐसे वबन्द्दु
वजिका इस वववियमावली में कोई उल्लेख िहीं है, के सम्बन्द्ध में
विणषय लेिे का अवधकार अध्यक्ष, ववद्युत सेवा आयोग को प्राप्त
होगा।"

(b)
Advertisement
does
not
contemplate that raw marks obtained by
each candidate in first part of examination
(minimum required marks were 20) were
liable to be normalized and only on
normalized marks, if they got more than 20
marks, answer sheet of second part of
examination
would
be
checked.
By
applying normalization to first part of
examination, benefit was granted to such
candidates also who though got more than
minimum marks, i.e., 20 marks, whereas
their raw marks were much less than 20
and for that learned counsel has referred
answer sheets of some of the selected
candidates (source of answer sheets is not
on record). Petitioners have claimed that
their respective raw marks in first part of
examination were more than 20, therefore,
even without normalization, their answer
sheets of second part of examination were
required to be checked.

(c) Some arguments are also
raised
with
regard
to
manner
of
normalization, however, on bare perusal of
manner of normalization mentioned in
counter affidavit, such argument does not
survive.

6.

Per
contra,
Sri
Abhishek
Srivastava, Advocate as well as Sri H.N.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri
Vineet
Kumar
Singh,
Advocate
appearing for respondents, referred the
counter affidavit that petitioners' score in
second
part
of
examination
after
normalization was less than the cut off
7 All. Shiv Charan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
787
marks, therefore, they were not included in
final
select
list.
Petitioners
have
participated in selection process, with open
eyes after going through the contents of
advertisement,
without
raising
any
objection and once they were not selected
in final select list, they approached this
Court challenging rules of game, which is
legally impermissible.

7. Learned counsel for respondents
vehemently denied the contentions raised
on behalf of petitioners that there was no
condition for normalization of raw marks in
first
part
of
examination
and
they
vehemently referred above mentioned part
of advertisement that marks were to be
determined on basis of normalization
method of both first and second part of
CBT though for determining merit the
marks obtained after normalization in
second part would only be taken into
account.

8. Learned counsel for respondents
also submitted that advertisement was
issued by Secretary, Electricity Service
Commission on behalf of Chairman,
Electricity Service Commission, therefore,
any
challenge
to
conditions
of
advertisement on ground being issued
without
jurisdiction
is
legally
unsustainable. Regulation dated 03.07.2017
specifically
empowered
Chairman,
Electricity Service Commission to take a
decision
on
issues
which were
not
mentioned in regulation.

9. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the material available
on record.

10. It is not under much dispute that
in
advertisement
it
was
specifically
mentioned that "ववज्ञावपत पद पर आवेदकों की संख्या
अवधक होिे की वस्थवत में ऑि-लाइि परीक्षा (CBT) एक से
अवधक पावलयों /वदवसों में कराई जाएगी। वववभन्द्ि विफ्ट के प्रश्नपत्ों
के मुल्यांकि के पश्चात Normalization method
(CBTके प्रथम एवं वद्वतीय भाग में) श्रेष्ठ्ता विधाषरण में प्रयक्त
होगा।", therefore, all petitioners were well
aware that final merit list will be prepared
on
basis
of
marks
obtained
after
normalization as well as it was also
specifically mentioned that normalization
method
will
be
applied
on
both
examinations, i.e., first and second part.

11. The argument of learned counsel
for petitioners that raw marks obtained in
first part of examination were wrongly
normalized or contrary to conditions of
advertisement, therefore, does not survive
being contrary to record.

12. In aforesaid circumstances, it is
evident
that
once
petitioners
have
participated in recruitment process and
when their names were not found in final
select list, they approached this Court
challenging the process of application of
normalization, however, the Court is of the
view that when with open eyes petitioners
have participated in recruitment process,
they cannot challenge the rules of game
after the game was over.

13. In this regard the Court takes note
of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh
Kumar and others, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1706 wherein it was reiterated that it is
settled position that unsuccessful candidate
cannot turn back and assail the selection
process. Relevant part of the judgment is
reproduced hereinafter:

"21.
A
candidate
who
has
participated in the selection process
adopted under the 2015 Rules is estopped
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
has
acquiesced
himself
from
questioning it thereafter, as held by this
Court in the case of Anupal Singh (supra):

"55. Having participated in
the interview, the private respondents
cannot challenge the Office Memorandum
dated 12-10-2014 and the selection. On
behalf of the appellants, it was contended
that after the revised Notification dated 1210-2014,
the
private
respondents
participated in the interview without
protest and only after the result was
announced and finding that they were not
selected, the private respondents chose to
challenge the revised Notification dated 1210-2014 and the private respondents are
estopped from challenging the selection
process. It is a settled law that a person
having consciously participated in the
interview cannot turn around and challenge
the selection process.

56. Observing that the result
of the interview cannot be challenged by a
candidate who has participated in the
interview and has taken the chance to get
selected
at
the
said
interview
and
ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful,
in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3
SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712], it was
held as under : (SCC p. 493, para 9)

"9. ... The petitioners also
appeared at the oral interview conducted
by
the
Members
concerned
of
the
Commission
who
interviewed
the
petitioners as well as the contesting
respondents
concerned.
Thus
the
petitioners took a chance to get themselves
selected at the said oral interview. Only
because they did not find themselves to
have emerged successful as a result of their
combined performance both at written test
and oral interview, they have filed this
petition. It is now well settled that if a
candidate takes a calculated chance and
appears at the interview, then, only because
the result of the interview is not palatable
to him, he cannot turn round and
subsequently contend that the process of
interview was unfair or the Selection
Committee was not properly constituted."

57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of
Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 1345], it was held as under : (SCC
p. 426, para 73)

"73. The appellant-petitioners
having participated in the interview in this
background, it is not open to the appellantpetitioners to turn round thereafter when
they failed at the interview and contend
that the provision of a minimum mark for
the interview was not proper."

58. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh
Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC
(L&S) 792], it was held as under : (SCC p.
107, para 19)

"19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari
v. Shakuntala Shukla [(2002) 6 SCC 127 :
2002 SCC (L&S) 830] ....

xxx xxx xxx

It was further observed : (SCC p.
149, para 34)

"34. There is thus no doubt that
while question of any estoppel by conduct
would not arise in the contextual facts but
the law seem to be well settled that in the
event a candidate appears at the interview
and participates therein, only because the
result of the interview is not "palatable" to
him,
he
cannot
turn
round
and
subsequently contend that the process of
interview was unfair or there was some
lacuna in the process."

59. Same principle was reiterated
in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh
[(2008) 4 SCC 619 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S)
9] wherein, it was held as under : (SCC pp.
645-46, para 59)

"59. It is also a settled position
that the unsuccessful candidates cannot
turn back and assail the selection process.
7 All. Tinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789
There are of course the exceptions carved
out by this Court to this general rule. This
position was reiterated by this Court in its
latest judgment in Union of India v. S.
Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007)
2 SCC (L&S) 792] .... The Court also
referred to the judgment in Om Prakash
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986
Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644],
where it has been held specifically that
when
a
candidate
appears
in
the
examination
without
protest
and
subsequently is found to be not successful
in the examination, the question of
entertaining the petition challenging such
examination would not arise."

14. The Court also takes note of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the
case of State of U.P. and others vs. Atul
Kumar Dwivedi and others, (2022) 11
SCC 578 relied on by learned counsel for
respondents that in the event when
examination is conducted in more than one
shifts, the process to ascertain merit by
applying normalization method on raw
marks was accepted as a legal method,
therefore, also any argument against
application of such method is sans merit.

15. The last argument of learned
counsel for petitioner was that some seats
are still vacant on which petitioners may be
considered in accordance to their respective
merit. However, the Court is of the opinion
that selection process is of the year 2018
and to consider the aforesaid prayer after
about 7 years would be in the teeth of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the
case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Pankaj
Kumar, (2022)1 SCC 335.

16. In view of above discussion, the
Court is of the opinion that the relief sought
by petitioners cannot be granted.

17. The writ petitions are accordingly
dismissed
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 789
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-A No. 6583 of 2022

Tinku Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Krishna MohanSri Akhilesh Chandra
Srivastava, C.S.C., Sri Gaurav Bishan

Issue for consideration
 Whether the claim of the petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds has been rightly declined by the
impugned order dated 14.09.2018?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Scheme
for
appointment
on
Compassionate
Grounds:
Clauses
6,
22(h)
-
Compassionate appointments are made
only to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over the
immediate financial crisis caused by
the death of the earning member of
the
family.
The
appointments
on
compassionate ground entail deviation from
regular processes of recruitment, and are
an
exception
to
the
constitutionally
mandated scheme for appointments to
posts in the government and in government
undertakings. Compassionate appointments
emanate from specific service rules holding
the field and have been rationalized by
service
law
jurisprudence
evolved
by
Constitutional Courts. (Para 6, 7, 11)