# Shiv Shanker Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 793
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30291 of 2002
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-shanker-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40537
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri B.N. Singh
Sri H.R. Bist
Sri A.K. Misra
Sri R.K. Misra
Sri K.C. Sinha

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
Law-Right
to
Appointment-Posts
of
Stenographer
advertised
by
Rajpoot
Regimental
Centre-essential
qualification prescribed as matriculation
with shorthand speed of 150 words per
minute and Typing Speed of 40 words
per
minute-petitioner
qualified
the
written test and placed at serial No. 2 in
merit list-appointment denied on the
ground-petitioner possessed two years
course certificate-held-it was neither
essential non preferential Qualificationnon
production
of
additional
qualification by the last date-could not
be ground to deny the appointment.

Held: Para 8

The requirement of valid certificate from
technical
education
Board/University
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
794
was neither prescribed in the rules nor in
the advertisement. The authority issuing
call letters for written test and interview
was not competent authority to lay down
the essential qualification for the post.
The petitioner was fully qualified and
had attained the required speed in short
hand and typing. She had secured
second position in the merit list. The fact
that she possessed only first year mark
sheet in diploma in Office Management
and
Secretarial
Practice
from
Government
Girls
Polytechnic,
Gorakhpur was not of any consequence
as
this
was
neither
essential
qualification
nor
preferential
qualification for appointment to the post.
When a candidate holds the minimum
qualification provided in the rules and in
the advertisement the fact that she could
not
produce
the
certificate
of
the
additional qualification by the last date
provided by the appointment authority
could
not
be
a
ground
to
deny
appointment to her.

## Text

2 All] Shiv Shanker Srivastava V. State of U.P. and others 793
bills, which are claimed as a matter of
right can hardly be measured in terms of
money. In this case the Joint Director,
(Medical Care) Government of U.P. who
works under and in the office of Director
General,
Medical
and
Health,
Government of U.P., was authorised to
verify
the
bills/vouchers
and
to
countersign the essentiality certificate. He
was squarely liable for delay, for
hardships and harassment caused to the
petitioner and the consequential loss to his
family. The petitioner has prayed for
damages of Rs. Six lakhs for untimely
loss of his father, and the hardship caused
to him before his death. I find that half the
amount
of
the
damages
would
compensate, for the loss caused to the
family on account of negligence of the
office of Director General, Medical and
Health, U.P. shall be sufficient in the
interest of justice. This would also have
deterrent effect on the officers and warn
them of such claims in future.

21. The writ petition is allowed. The
respondents
are
directed
to
pay
Rs.44,272/- as cost of the pace maker
installed in 1995, along with 9% simple
interest per annum to the petitioner. A
writ of mandamus is also issued to the
respondents to pay compensation to the
family of the petitioner of Rs. Three
Lakhs for the untimely loss of his father
harassment, mental agony and hardships
caused to the family to be paid to his son
substituted as petitioner in this writ
petition. The entire amount shall be paid
to him for the benefit of the family of the
deceased, within three months from the
date of production of certified copy of this
order before the respondents. It will be
open to the State Government to fix the
responsibility on the officers for the delay
and damages, and to take appropriate
disciplinary
action
for
punishment/recovery
against
such
persons.

 Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30291 of 2002

Rajani Pandey

...Petitioner
Versus
The Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri Sanjai Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh
Sri H.R. Bist
Sri A.K. Misra
Sri R.K. Misra
Sri K.C. Sinha

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
Law-Right
to
Appointment-Posts
of
Stenographer
advertised
by
Rajpoot
Regimental
Centre-essential
qualification prescribed as matriculation
with shorthand speed of 150 words per
minute and Typing Speed of 40 words
per
minute-petitioner
qualified
the
written test and placed at serial No. 2 in
merit list-appointment denied on the
ground-petitioner possessed two years
course certificate-held-it was neither
essential non preferential Qualificationnon
production
of
additional
qualification by the last date-could not
be ground to deny the appointment.

Held: Para 8

The requirement of valid certificate from
technical
education
Board/University
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
794
was neither prescribed in the rules nor in
the advertisement. The authority issuing
call letters for written test and interview
was not competent authority to lay down
the essential qualification for the post.
The petitioner was fully qualified and
had attained the required speed in short
hand and typing. She had secured
second position in the merit list. The fact
that she possessed only first year mark
sheet in diploma in Office Management
and
Secretarial
Practice
from
Government
Girls
Polytechnic,
Gorakhpur was not of any consequence
as
this
was
neither
essential
qualification
nor
preferential
qualification for appointment to the post.
When a candidate holds the minimum
qualification provided in the rules and in
the advertisement the fact that she could
not
produce
the
certificate
of
the
additional qualification by the last date
provided by the appointment authority
could
not
be
a
ground
to
deny
appointment to her.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjai Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
H.R.S. Bist for respondents 1, 2 and 3. Sri
A.K. Misra appears for respondent no. 4
and 5. He had put appearance in the year
2002 but has not filed any counter
affidavit. His request for adjournment was
not accepted.

2. The petitioner was an applicant
for the two posts of stenographers
advertised by Rajput Regimental Centre,
Fatehgarh along with other posts. The
publication declared the posts to be in the
pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-; the age of
the candidate to be between 18-25 years
and qualifications to be matriculate with
shorthand speed of 150 word per minute,
and typing speed of 40 word per minute
(English). The note appended to the
advertisement required applications along
with testimonials to reach the Quarter
Master,
Rajput
Regimental
Centre,
Fatehgarh, U.P. by 15.2.2002. The
petitioner had passed Secondary School
Examination in the year 1994 from
Central Board of Secondary Education
and had passed the first year of the two
year Diploma course in Modern Office
Management and Secretarial Practice vide
certificate dated 2.8.2001. She applied
and was selected and placed at serial no. 2
in the select list. By letter dated 17.6.2002
she was sent a medical certificate form
and was informed by Lt. Col. of
Officiating
Quarter
Master
for
Commandant that her police verification
papers have been forwarded to the
Superintendent
of
Police,
District
Ghazipur and that her appointment will be
considered subject to production of
Technical Diploma Certificate (short
hand) by 29.6.2002.

3. The petitioner by her letter dated
20.6.2002 made a representation to Chief
of Army Staff, Army Headquarters, New
Delhi stating that the advertisement
provided
the
qualifications
to
be
matriculate with requisite speed of short
hand and typing. The concerned officer
has raised a doubt on his first year
Diploma
Certificate
issued
by
Government
Girls,
Polytechnic,
Gorakhpur.
Inspite
of
medical
examination
and
police
verification
completed on 26.6.2002, she was not
considered
for
appointment.
She
requested that since she will complete the
maximum age of 25 years of age on
11.8.2002, the appointment letter be
issued to her.

4. By this writ petition, she has
prayed for a writ of certiorari calling for
the record and quashing the letter/order
2 All] Rajani Pandey V. The Chief of Army Staff, New Delhi and others 795
dated 17.6.2002 requiring her to produce
two years diploma certificate and for a
direction to decide her representation. By
an amendment vide order dated 2.1.2003,
she has prayed for quashing the whole
selection/appointments made in pursuance
of advertisement dated 9.2.2002 and to
direct the respondent no. 2 to appoint
petitioner on the post of Stenographer in
Rajput Regimental Centre, Fatehgarh.

5. In the counter affidavit, it is stated
that two posts of stenographers were
authorised in the peace establishment of
the
centre
on
31.7.1997,
but
no
stenographers were posted. The Army
Headquarters gave sanction for direct
recruitment of two stenographers vide
letter dated 26.6.2001 with validity of six
months only. On receipt of no objection
certificate from Department of Personnel
and Training, DGI and Ministry of
Labour, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi,
the vacancies were notified to District
Employment Exchange vide letter dated
24.9.2001. The required number of
candidates did not respond. The vacancies
were, therefore, again notified in local
news paper ''Dainik Jagran' on 5.12.2001.
Once again the required number of
candidates did not apply and thus the
Army Headquarters was approached to
extend the validity of sanction. The
validity was extended till 31.3.2002. Once
again since required number of candidates
were not available and thus on a request
the validity was again extended and the
posts were advertised. A total number of
60 candidates applied for the post of
stenographer Group III and were issued
call letters to report to Rejput Regimental
Centre on 9.3.2002 for written test and
interview.
The
technical
educational
certificate were required to be produced
by the candidates. Sri Ravindra Singh
Rathor and Rajni Pandey (petitioner) and
Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh in the order to
merit passed the written test and interview
and were called vide call letter for final
scrutiny of documents on 15.5.2002. The
petitioner was found to possess first year
diploma of two years diploma course on
Modern
Office
Management
and
Secretarial Practice from Government
Mahila Polytechnic, Gorakhpur. She had
not completed the course, and could not
produce
the
certificate
of
technical
qualification
from
the
qualifications
testing
board.
The office
had
not
instructed the candidates to produce two
years Diploma Certificate. She was asked
to produce valid technical qualification,
short hand (English) and Type writing
(English) certificate issued by the Board
of Technical Education. The Army
Headquarters had extended the validity of
sanction for recruitment on 30.6.2002.
The petitioner could not produce the valid
certificate by 29.6.2002 and thus the
results were announced and her name
were struck out of the merit list and the
next reserved candidates was considered
for appointments.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that there was no requirement of
any technical educational qualification for
the post to be certified by any technical
education board. The Recruitment Rules
for Stenographers Group III issued by
Adjutant, General Branch at CRG-4 (CIB)
(a) do not provide for any technical
qualification. The recruitment rules issued
on 12.1.1994 provide the educational and
other qualifications required for direct
recruitment,
to
be
matriculate
or
equivalent and that the candidate must
possess a speed of 80 word per minute
either in English or in Hindi to be
translated and typed within the time
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
796
prescribed for the purpose. The petitioner
had completed the second year course and
the certificate was issued to her only a
few days later than 30.6.2002. Her name,
however, was arbitrarily struck off from
the select list and the next person was
given appointment. It is contended that
where a technical qualification is not
necessary, the insistence to produce the
second year certificate was illegal and
arbitrary and was made only to favour the
reserve candidate. Lastly it is contended
that the sanction of the post to fill up the
post was extended on 30.6.2002 could not
be a ground to reject the candidature of a
selected candidate awaiting appointment
orders.

7. After hearing parties and perusing
the relevant rules including the general
guidelines/procedural formalities to be
followed for filling up Group C & D
vacancies through direct recruitment, I
find that a technical certificate issued by
technical education board was not the
essential qualification for appointment.
The Rules and guidelines for recruitment
as well as the advertisement did not
provide for possessing any such technical
qualification. The qualification announced
as essential for the post of stenographers
was matriculate with short hand speed of
100 per minute (English) and typing
speed of 40 word per minute (English). In
the supplementary counter affidavit of Lt.
Col. M.S. Raju, Quarter Master for
Commandant, Rajput Regimental Central,
Fatehgarh, it is clearly stated in paragraph
5 that the requisite qualifications were not
amended and no corrigendum was issued.
The requirement of valid certificate from
technical education board/universities was
insisted only in the call letter issued for
written
test
and
interview
dated
26.2.2002. The petitioner was required to
submit
the
original
certificates
by
29.6.2002.
She
was
thus
illegally
disqualified.

8. The requirement of valid
certificate
from
technical
education
Board/University was neither prescribed
in the rules nor in the advertisement. The
authority issuing call letters for written
test and interview was not competent
authority to lay down the essential
qualification for the post. The petitioner
was fully qualified and had attained the
required speed in short hand and typing.
She had secured second position in the
merit list. The fact that she possessed only
first year mark sheet in diploma in Office
Management and Secretarial Practice
from
Government
Girls
Polytechnic,
Gorakhpur was not of any consequence as
this was neither essential qualification nor
preferential qualification for appointment
to the post. When a candidate holds the
minimum qualification provided in the
rules and in the advertisement the fact that
she could not produce the certificate of
the additional qualification by the last
date
provided
by
the
appointment
authority could not be a ground to deny
appointment to her. The affidavit of the
petitioner accompanying the application
dated 13.11.2002, discloses that she has
completed two years Diploma Course and
her result was available on the Internet
before 29.6.2002 and she expected to be
issued the certificate in the first week of
August, 2002. She in fact received the
certificate of the two years course on
1.8.2002 and the mark sheet on 13.8.2002
which has been brought on record. The
respondents, however, did not accept the
certificate as the post was sanctioned to
be filled up only upto 30.6.2002. In my
opinion
the
petitioner
was
treated
arbitrarily in rejecting her candidate and
2 All] Rajani Pandey V. The Chief of Army Staff, New Delhi and others 797
refusing her request to produce the
certificate, the result of which was
available on the Internet. Even otherwise
this certificate of the course pursued by
her as additional qualification was not
essential for appointment. She had passed
the test and was declared selected. She,
therefore,
could
not
be
refused
appointment.

9. The writ petition is allowed. The
order of appointment of Sri Jitendra
Kumar, respondent no. 4 placed at third in
the merit list is set aside. The petitioner
shall be given appointment without any
delay with seniority with effect from the
date she was entitled to be appointed if
her candidature was not struck out.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.49394 of 2004

Smt. Srikanti Nishad

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Singh
Sri Vishnu Pratap
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Grant of
mining lease-Petitioner discovered new
area of mining applied for grant of leaseApplication remained pending for 8 yrs.-
decided only after the interference of
High Court-the G.O. 25.05.1995 relied by
petitioner-modified by subsequent G.O.
dated 16.10.04-No such provision to
grant lease to those who discovered new
mines-during this period the person to
whom lease granted-not impleaded-No
malafide
allegation
against
the
authority-Court declined to interfere.

Held: Para 12

Thus, the District Magistrate, Deoria was
required to consider the provisions of
Government Order applicable on the date
the decision was to be taken. From the
records, we find that by Government
Order dated 27th August, 2002, the
Government had taken a decision not to
grant mining lease in future on the basis
of the earlier Government Order dated
25th
May,
1995
and
even
in
the
subsequent Government Order dated
16th October, 2004, there is no provision
for grant of mining lease in favour of a
person who has discovered the mining
lease. The District Magistrate, Deoria has
passed a detailed order rejecting the
representation of the petitioner on this
ground. We see no infirmity in the said
order.
Case law discussed:
1997 (7) SCC-314
AIR 1981 SC-711
1999 (1) SCC-475
2004 (1) SCC-663
1992 (3) SCC-455
1995 (5) SCC-125
1998 ACJ 590

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for
quashing
the
order
dated
8th
November, 2004 passed by the District
Magistrate,
Deoria
rejecting
the
representation filed by the petitioner for
grant of mining lease and for a direction
upon the respondents to grant the mining