# Smt. Kavita Sonkar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 985
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-21
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 959 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kavita-sonkar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48618
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Sri
M.N.
Singh,
Sri
V.K.S.
Raghuvanshi

A.
Service
Law
-
Appointment
-
Qualification/Eligibility - The essential
qualifications for appointment to a post
are for the employer to decide. The
employer may prescribe additional or
desirable
qualifications,
including
any
grant of preference. It is the employer who is
best suited to decide the requirements a
candidate must possess according to the needs
of the employer and the nature of work. The
court cannot lay down the conditions of
eligibility, much less can it delve into the
issue w.r.t. desirable qualifications being
at par with the essential eligibility by an
interpretive
re-writing
of
the
advertisement. Questions of equivalence
will also fall outside the domain of judicial
review. (Para 7, 8, 9)

If the language of the advertisement and the
rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the
advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or
law the matter has to go back to the appointing
authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in
accordance with law. In no case can the
court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in
the chair of the appointing authority to
decide what is best for the employer and
interpret
the
conditions
of
the
advertisement
contrary
to
the
plain
language of the same. (Para 8)

B.
The
recruitment/selection
process
should be made strictly in accordance with
terms of the advertisement and the
recruitment rules. (Para 10)

The petitioner possess the DCA Certificate,
which is not equivalent to "O" Level certificate
awarded
by
the
DOEACC
society
or
a
qualification equivalent thereto, therefore, he is
not eligible or qualified for the post of Assistant
Review
Officer
as
per
the
prescribed
qualification mentioned in the advertisement,
hence it would be impermissible to consider the
petitioner as being eligible for the said post and
relief as prayed has also not been granted.
(Para 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

5 All. Smt. Kavita Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
985
also issue an appropriate identifiable
certificate to every officer after he/she
completes the training session. The relevant
details
of
the
said
training
session/certificates shall be referred by the
officer concerned in every inquiry report
submitted by him/her or punishment order
passed. All the officers who are conducting
any inquiry at present in the State shall
attend the training without any delay and
such inquiry officers shall conclude their
inquiries only after their training is
completed.
Similarly
the
punishing
authority shall also go through the required
training before passing any punishment
order
and
also
refer
to
their
session/certificate. It is further directed that
no inquiry officer in future shall be
appointed for departmental inquiry who has
not received the training from the J.T.R.I.
The State government shall bear the cost of
the aforesaid training at J.T.R.I. at its own
cost.

10. Senior Registrar of this Court
shall forthwith send a copy of this order to
the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. as
well as Director, J.T.R.I., Lucknow for its
compliance.

11. Since, in the present case,
admittedly, there is violation of Rule-7 as
the documents relied upon by the inquiry
officer
were
never
provided
to
the
petitioner nor the inquiry is conducted
following the procedure prescribed under
Rule-7, i.e., by summoning the witnesses of
the department, giving chance of cross
examination, providing opportunity to the
delinquent employee/petitioner to call his
witnesses, therefore, impugned order dated
11.04.2022 cannot stand and is set aside.

12. The matter is remanded back to
respondent no.2 for conducting fresh
inquiry after following proper procedure as
prescribed under Rule-7.

13. With the aforesaid, the writ
petition is allowed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A985
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 959 of 2022

Smt. Kavita Sonkar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Babu Lal Ram, Sri Ankit Sonker

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Sri
M.N.
Singh,
Sri
V.K.S.
Raghuvanshi

A.
Service
Law
-
Appointment
-
Qualification/Eligibility - The essential
qualifications for appointment to a post
are for the employer to decide. The
employer may prescribe additional or
desirable
qualifications,
including
any
grant of preference. It is the employer who is
best suited to decide the requirements a
candidate must possess according to the needs
of the employer and the nature of work. The
court cannot lay down the conditions of
eligibility, much less can it delve into the
issue w.r.t. desirable qualifications being
at par with the essential eligibility by an
interpretive
re-writing
of
the
advertisement. Questions of equivalence
will also fall outside the domain of judicial
review. (Para 7, 8, 9)

If the language of the advertisement and the
rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the
advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or
law the matter has to go back to the appointing
authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in
accordance with law. In no case can the
court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in
the chair of the appointing authority to
decide what is best for the employer and
interpret
the
conditions
of
the
advertisement
contrary
to
the
plain
language of the same. (Para 8)

B.
The
recruitment/selection
process
should be made strictly in accordance with
terms of the advertisement and the
recruitment rules. (Para 10)

The petitioner possess the DCA Certificate,
which is not equivalent to "O" Level certificate
awarded
by
the
DOEACC
society
or
a
qualification equivalent thereto, therefore, he is
not eligible or qualified for the post of Assistant
Review
Officer
as
per
the
prescribed
qualification mentioned in the advertisement,
hence it would be impermissible to consider the
petitioner as being eligible for the said post and
relief as prayed has also not been granted.
(Para 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vs Imtiyaz Ahmad,
(2019) 2 SCC 404 (Para 7)

2. Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs
Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362
(Para 8)

3. Punjab National Bank Vs Anit Kumar Das,
2020 SCC Online 897 (Para 9)

4. Yogesh Kumar & ors. Vs Government of NTC
Delhi, (2003) 3 SCC 548 (Para 10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Instructions passed on to the Court
today, is kept on record.

2. Heard Mr. Babu Lal Ram, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent
no.1 and Mr. V.K.S. Raghuvanshi, learned
counsel for the respondents-Commission.

3. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner with the following prayer:-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing thereby call upon the respondents
to produce order of cancellation of
candidature of the petitioner passed by the
respondents and this Hon'ble Court also be
pleased to quash the aforesaid order
regarding cancellation of candidature of
the petitioner.

(b) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to permit the
petitioner to join her duty on the post of
A.R.O. in pursuance of the advertisement
No.A-6/E-1/2014
R.O./A.R.O.
(direct/special
recruitment
examination
2014) and this Hon'ble Court also be
pleased to direct the respondents to
recommended selection of the petitioner on
the post of R.O./A.R.O."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner applied for the
post
of
A.R.O.
in
pursuance
of
Advertisement No. A-6/E-1/2014 and was
declared successful in the pre and main
examination, but the appointment has not
been given to the petitioner for the reasons
best known respondents-Commission.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents-Commission, on the basis of
instructions received, submits that one of
the requirements for the post of Assistant
Review Officer is that candidate, should
5 All. Smt. Kavita Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
987
possess 'O' Level Certificate in computer
Application from an Institute recognized by
the Government. He further submits that
the petitioner, who applied for the post of
A.R.O., did not possess "O" Level
certificate awarded by the DOEACC
society
or
a
qualification
equivalent
thereto, therefore, his candidature has been
rejected when the document were being
verified. Thus, the relief as prayed can not
be granted.

6. From perusal of impugned
advertisement as well as the document as
annexed at page 23&24 to the petition, it is
clear that the petitioner possesses the DCA
Certificate, which is not equivalent "O"
Level certificate awarded by the DOEACC
society
or
a
qualification
equivalent
thereto, therefore, he is not eligible or
qualified for the post of Assistant Review
Officer as per the prescribed qualification
mentioned in the advertisement. It is the
Commission/competent authority, who has
right to consider the case of the petitioner
and it is not the function of the Court to
adjudge or evaluate the suitability or
desirability of a particular qualification that
may be prescribed. Here too the Courts
must exercise due restraint and desist from
treading down this path since these issues
must be left to the fair judgment and
assessment of the employer and the experts
in the field.

7. The Apex Court in the case of
Zahoor
Ahmad
Rather
Vs.
Imtiyaz
Ahmad, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 has
held as under: -

"26. ...... 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 K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S)
664] 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 [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor
Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017,
decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High
Court was justified in reversing the
judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of
J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the
learned Single Judge and in coming to the
conclusion that the appellants did not meet
the prescribed qualifications. We find no
error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v.
Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135
of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of
the Division Bench."

8. The Apex Court in the case of
Maharashtra Public Service Commission
Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade, reported in
(2019) 6 SCC 362 has also held as under:-

"9. The essential qualifications
for appointment to a post are for the
employer to decide. The employer may
prescribe
additional
or
desirable
qualifications, including any grant of
preference. It is the employer who is best
suited to decide the requirements a
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidate must possess according to the
needs of the employer and the nature of
work. The court cannot lay down the
conditions of eligibility, much less can it
delve into the issue with regard to desirable
qualifications being on a par with the
essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of
equivalence will also fall outside the
domain of judicial review. If the language
of the advertisement and the rules are
clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over
the same. If there is an ambiguity in the
advertisement or it is contrary to any rules
or law the matter has to go back to the
appointing authority after appropriate
orders, to proceed in accordance with law.
In no case can the court, in the garb of
judicial review, sit in the chair of the
appointing authority to decide what is best
for
the
employer
and
interpret
the
conditions of the advertisement contrary to
the plain language of the same."

9. The Full Bench of the Apex Court
in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs.
Anit Kumar Das, 2020 SCC Online SC
897 has observed as under:-

"21.Thus, as held by this Court
in the aforesaid decisions, it is for the
employer to determine and decide the
relevancy
and
suitability
of
the
qualifications for any post and it is not
for the Courts to consider and assess. A
greater latitude is permitted by the
Courts for the employer to prescribe
qualifications for any post. There is a
rationale behind it. Qualifications are
prescribed keeping in view the need and
interest of an Institution or an Industry or
an establishment as the case may be. The
Courts are not fit instruments to assess
expediency or advisability or utility of
such prescription of qualifications......"

10.

The
recruitment/selection
process should be made strictly in
accordance
with
terms
of
the
advertisement and the recruitment rules
as has been held by the Apex Court in the
case of Yogesh Kumar And Others vs
Government Of NTC Delhi reported in
(2003) 3 SCC 548.

11. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the Court is of the considered
view that the petitioner possess the DCA
Certificate, which is not equivalent "O"
Level
certificate
awarded
by
the
DOEACC society or a qualification
equivalent thereto, therefore, he is not
eligible or qualified for the post of
Assistant Review Officer as per the
prescribed qualification mentioned in the
advertisement,
hence
it
would
be
impermissible to consider the petitioner
as being eligible for the said post and
relief as prayed has also not been granted.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition
lacks merits and is dismissed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A988
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 718 of 2014

Virendra Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Bridge Corp. Ltd. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Singh 'Paliwal', Ramesh Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shishir Jain, Ram Ratan