# Smt. Madhumita Pandey v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 507
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-25
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 5246 of 2024
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-madhumita-pandey-v-u-o-i-ors-52374
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Post of Gramin Dak
Sevak (GDS) - Qualification - Petitioner
possessed Certificate of Prathama from
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan - Notification
dated 24.11.2009 require the qualification
of High School form a recognized Board -
However,
the
Notification
dated
21.11.2006
recognized
Certificate
of
Prathama as equivalence to High School -
Effect - Held, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is
neither a University/Deemed University
nor Educational Board but it is only a
society registered under the Societies
Registration Act and the degree offered by
it has no sanctity, but what is to be seen is
the stand of the Postal Department based
upon the statutory rules with regard to
the issue of equivalence - The recruitment
rules
itself
provides
for
equivalent
qualification and once the position being
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
so, in the backdrop of the notification
dated 26.11.2006 as adopted from time to
time by the Postal Department, it cannot
be said that the selection and the
appointment of the writ petitioner was
illegal. (Para 18 and 19)

Writ allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Smt. Madhumita Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
507

55. In the instant matter, the
procedure
adopted
by
the
appellant
University under Clause 5 (a) is just and
proper as the said provision leaves it open
upon the wisdom of the employer to part
with the enquiry, if the employer did not
find it proper to institute an enquiry. The
term used 'may' in Clause 5 (a) leaves
upon the discretion of the University to
dispense with service of the probationer by
simply payment of one month salary in lieu
of notice.

56. The employer/University is well
within its domain in not continuing the
petitioner, who is facing grave charge of
molestation and is bailed out in the criminal
case. The factum of not disclosing the
details/nature of criminal case against the
petitioner may have independently invited
the termination even in absence of any
complaints. The requirement of integrity
and high standard of conduct is of
paramount importance in the service of
teacher. However, in this case, it was not a
case of termination on the ground of
complaint, but was a simple discharge of
probationer.

57. We are, therefore, of the
considered opinion that the mere reiteration
of a universal fact of Dr. Deepali Pant
Joshi, does not amount to stigma by any
stretch of imagination as it can at the best
be taken as a general statement. The
termination of the petitioner is, therefore,
neither punitive nor stigmatic.

58. For the aforesaid reasons, we are
of the firm view that the learned Single
Judge has recorded contradictory findings
of facts in the impugned judgement.

59. In view of the law laid down on
the subject by the Apex Court and the
material placed on record, the judgement of
learned Single Judge dated 23.05.2024
deserves to be set aside and is hereby set
aside.

60. Accordingly, the Special Appeal
stands allowed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 507
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ A No. 5246 of 2024

Smt. Madhumita Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner
Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
V.K. Singh (Sr. Adv.), Saumitra Singh,
Vinay Kumar Srivastava

A. Service Law - Post of Gramin Dak
Sevak (GDS) - Qualification - Petitioner
possessed Certificate of Prathama from
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan - Notification
dated 24.11.2009 require the qualification
of High School form a recognized Board -
However,
the
Notification
dated
21.11.2006
recognized
Certificate
of
Prathama as equivalence to High School -
Effect - Held, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is
neither a University/Deemed University
nor Educational Board but it is only a
society registered under the Societies
Registration Act and the degree offered by
it has no sanctity, but what is to be seen is
the stand of the Postal Department based
upon the statutory rules with regard to
the issue of equivalence - The recruitment
rules
itself
provides
for
equivalent
qualification and once the position being
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
so, in the backdrop of the notification
dated 26.11.2006 as adopted from time to
time by the Postal Department, it cannot
be said that the selection and the
appointment of the writ petitioner was
illegal. (Para 18 and 19)

Writ allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Rajasthan
Pradesh
Vidya
Samiti
V.S.
Sardarshahar & anr. Vs U.O.I.& ors.; 2010 (12)
SCC 609

2. Manish Kumar Vs St. of U.P.; 2010 (9) ADJ
762

3. Bedanga Talukdar Vs Saifudullah Khan & ors.;
2011 (12) SCC 85

4. Ankita Thakur & ors.Vs H.P. Staff Selection
Commission & ors.; 2023 (7) Supreme Court
468

5. Ashish Kumar Vs St. of Uttar Pradesh; 2018
(3) SCC 55

6. Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2022; Employee St.
Insurance Corporation Ltd. Vs U.O.I.decided on
20.01.2022

7. Zahoor Ahmad Rather & ors. Vs Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad & ors.; 2019 (2) SCC 404

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1.

Impugned
in
the
present
proceedings at the instance of Smt.
Madhumita
Pandey
(in
short
'writ
petitioner') is an order dated 20.03.2024
passed by Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short
'Tribunal') in OA No. 1820 of 2010 (Smt.
Kalpana Tripathi Vs. Union of India & 4
Others), whereby the original application
preferred by Smt. Kalpana Tripathi (in
short 'original applicant') questioning the
order dated 15.07.2010 of the Post Master
General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur,
third
respondent
(in
short
'Postal
Department') appointing the writ petitioner
on the post of GDS, Branch Post Master,
Baraon, Branch Office was set aside.

2. A joint statement has been made by
the learned counsels for the parties that
they do not propose to file any affidavits.
With the consent of the parties, the writ
petition is being decided at the fresh on the
basis of the documents available on record.

Facts:

3. The case of the original applicant
which was projected before the Tribunal as
set out in the OA is that a recruitment
exercise was undertaken by the Postal
Department for filling up the post of GDS
Branch Post Master, Baraon, Branch Office
through
District
Employment
Officer,
Deoria. The original applicant along with
the writ petitioner and others applied in
pursuance
of
the
said
notification,
thereafter, a merit list was prepared of five
candidates on the basis of the percentage of
marks
obtained
in
the
high
school
examination
in
which
the
original
applicant's name found place at serial No.
4 whereas the writ petitioner was assigned
ranking at serial No. 3. On 15.07.2010, an
appointment order came to be issued in
favour of the writ petitioner appointing her
on the post of GDS, Branch Post Master,
Baraon. The original applicant questioned
the appointment of the writ petitioner on
the said post while instituting proceedings,
OA No. 1820 of 2010 seeking following
reliefs:-

"A. To quash the order dated
15.07.2010 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the
respondent No. 3 for the appointment of the
respondent No. 4 the post of Post Master,
Post Office Baraw, District Deoria.
9 All. Smt. Madhumita Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
509

B. To direct the respondent No. 3
to appoint the applicant on the post of Post
Master,
Post
Office
Baraw,
District
Deoria.

C. To pass such other and further
order which may be deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.

D. To award the cost of this
application to the applicant."

4. The sheet anchor of the challenge
raised to the appointment of the writ
petitioner was on the premise that she was
not eligible and qualified for being selected
and appointed on the said post, as the
minimum
qualification
as
per
the
notification
dated
24.11.2009
was
possession of High School certificate from
a recognized Board. Since, according to the
original applicant, the writ petitioner
possessed the certificate of Prathama
examination conducted by the Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad which was
not the qualification specified in the
notification, thus, the selection and the
appointment of the writ petitioner was
illegal.

5. The Tribunal entertained the
original application while issuing notice to
the writ
petitioner and seeking response from the
writ petitioner as well as the Postal
Department. On contest, response was filed
by the Postal Department and the writ
petitioner to which rejoinder affidavits
were filed and the O.A. came to be allowed
while
relying upon
the decision
in
Rajasthan Pradesh Vidya Samiti V.S.
Sardarshahar & Anr. Vs. Union of India
and others, 2010 (12) SCC 609 and
Manish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (9)
ADJ 762 holding that the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan is neither a University nor an
Educational Board and the certificate so
offered does not have legal sanctity, the
appointment of the writ petitioner was set
aside.

6. Questioning the order dated
20.03.2024 passed in OA No. 1820 of
2010, the writ petitioner has filed the
present writ petition seeking following
reliefs.-

"i. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash
the
impugned
order
dated
20.03.2024
passed
by
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in
Original Application No. 1820 of 2010
(Smt. Kalpana Tripathi Vs. Union of India
and others).

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents not to interfere her working as
Branch
Postmaster
Branch
Baraon,
District Deoria.

iii. Issue any other writ order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the present case.

iv. Award costs of the writ
petition to the petitioner."

7. This Court on presentation of the
writ petition on 15.04.2024 passed the
following orders.-

"1.
Supplementary
affidavit,
annexing the certified copy of the impugned
order, filed today, is taken on record.

2.
Sri
B.B.P.
Srivastava,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar
Srivastava, has entered appearance on
behalf of respondent no. 5.

3. Counsel for the petitioner to
provide him with complete set of pleadings.

4. As jointly prayed, list as fresh
on 25.4.2024, showing the name of Sri
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vinay Kumar Srivastava as counsel for
respondent no. 5.

5. The order has been passed in
the presence of Sri Saumitra Singh, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4."

8. Thereafter, on 01.08.2024 the
following orders were passed.-

"1. Despite grant of sufficient
time, the Notification dated 21.11.2006,
Annexure-6 (Page 111) published in
Gazette has not been produced. However, a
copy of the said notification as annexed
with the petition has been again produced
by learned A.S.G.I.

2. In view of the fact that the
respondents themselves have relied on the
said notification dated 21.11.2006, now the
plea being raised on behalf of the
respondents is that the advertisement did
not indicate the equivalent qualification
and in terms of the notification also, the
same is only an equivalent qualification.

3. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Rules provide equivalent
qualification and prays for time to produce
the same.

4. In view of the submissions
made, list on 20th August, 2024, as fresh."

Argument
of
counsel
for
writ
petitioner:

9. Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel
for the petitioner has sought to argue that
the judgment and order of the Tribunal
impugned in the present writ petition
cannot be sustained for a single moment
inasmuch as the Tribunal has misconstrued
the entire controversy and has adopted an
incorrect approach. Elaborating the said
submission it is submitted that as per the
statutory rules for Postal Gramin Dak
Sevak, Section IV deals with the method of
recruitment and according to which for the
post of ED/Post Master/ED Branch Post
Master,
the
relevant
qualification
is
matriculation or equivalent thereof.

10. Submission is that though
matriculation is one of the qualification but
besides it equivalent qualification as
recognized by the Postal Department is also
permissible for the recruitment on the post
in
question.
According
to
the
writ
petitioner, in the case in hand the Postal
Department had issued a notification dated
21.11.2006 under the signature of the Joint
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of High Education according to
which in continuation of the departments
notification
dated
14.05.2004
the
Government of India in its meeting held on
16.10.2006 had decided to extend the
provisional recognition granted to the
Prathama examination being conducted by
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad for the
purposes of employment under the Central
Government for the post where the desired
qualification is to pass matriculation for a
period of three years from 27.07.2007 to
26.10.2010. It is, thus, contended that
merely because the writ petitioner does not
possess matriculation from U.P. High
School and Intermediate Education, ICSE
or CBSC, the same would not be a
disqualification
particularly
when
the
Prathama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
has been made equivalent. Additionally, it
has been argued that the judgments in the
case of Rajasthan Pradesh (supra) and
Manish Kumar (supra) would not be
applicable in the present case and, thus, the
Tribunal erred in law in allowing the
original application while setting aside the
appointment of the writ petitioner, it is,
therefore, prayed that the order of the
Tribunal
impugned
in
the
present
9 All. Smt. Madhumita Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
511
proceeding be set aside and the writ
petition be allowed while granting relief as
claimed in toto.

Argument of counsels for Original
Applicant:

11. Countering the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.K.
Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava has submitted
that the judgment and order of the Tribunal
needs no interference in the present
proceedings in view of the fact that the
Tribunal has considered each and every
aspect of the matter and has proceeded to
pass an order which cannot be said to be
suffering from any illegality. Argument is
that the qualification as prescribed in the
advertisement was matriculation from a
recognized Board and once the writ
petitioner as per her own saying possessed
qualification of Prathama from Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan
which
is
not
a
recognized
institution
then
by
all
eventuality the selection and appointment
of the writ petitioner was illegal and has
been rightly set aside by the Tribunal.
Reliance has been placed upon the decision
in Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudullah
Khan & Ors., 2011 (12) SCC 85 and
Ankita Thakur and Ors. Vs. H.P. Staff
Selection Commission & Ors. reported
in 2023 (7) Supreme Court 468 so as to
contend that even if there exists power of
relaxation of the rules then the same has to
be
specifically
indicated
in
the
advertisement otherwise it would be in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Submission is that
though the rule provides for possession of
matriculation and equivalent examination
but once relaxation is being accorded then
it is to be specifically mentioned in the
advertisement so as to give opportunity to
the other deserving candidates who would
have applied in that regard. Since the
advertisement did not prescribe for any
equivalent qualification, thus, no benefit
whatsoever could have been accorded to
the writ petitioner. While driving force
from the judgment in Rajasthan Pradesh
Vidya Samiti (supra) and Manish Kumar
(supra) it is contended that once there
happens to be series of decisions on the
subject that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
being neither university/deemed university
nor an educational board, thus, the question
of equivalence itself stands extinguished,
therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled
to relief and the writ petition be dismissed.

Argument of counsel for Postal
Department:

12. Sri Saumitra Singh, learned
counsel who appears for the Postal
Department has supported the case of the
writ petitioner while adding that the Postal
Department in view of the notification
dated
21.11.2006
considers
the
qualification of Prathama from Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan
as
equivalent
to
matriculation and the same stands adopted
also. According to him the selection and
appointment of the writ petitioner is
perfectly valid and on the basis of the sheer
dint of merit she has been selected and
accorded appointment and the Tribunal
committed an error in allowing the original
application preferred by the original
applicant
while
setting
aside
the
appointment of the writ petitioner.

Relevant
Statutory
Rules/Notifications

Section
IV:
Method
of
Recruitment (Postal Gramin Dak Sevak)

"2. Educational Qualifications:
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

ED Sub-Postmasters and ED
Branch Postmasters:

Matriculation.
[The
selection
should be based on the marks secured in
the
Matriculation
or
equivalent
examinations. No weightage need be given
for
any
qualification(s)
higher
than
Matriculation.]"
"Notification Dated 24.11.2006
Government of India
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Department of Higher Educational
New Delhi, 21st November, 2006
Notification

No.
F.24-4/2001-TS-III.
In
continuation
of
this
Department's
Notification
of
even
number
dated
14.05.2004, the Government of India, on
the recommendations of Higher Level
Committee
in
its
meeting
held
on
16.10.2006, has decided to extend the
provisional recognition granted to the
Prathama Examination being conducted by
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad for the
purpose of employment under the Central
Government for the post for which the
desired
qualification
is
a
pass
in
matriculation for a further period of 3 years
from 27.10.2007 to 26.10.2010, after which
the Committee will review the recognition
granted.
Ravi Mathur)
Joint Secretary to the Government of India"
"Notification Dated 24.11.2001
भ रतीय ड क सिभ ग

क य ालय अिीिक ड कघर देिररय मण्डल देिररय -
274001

पत् िंक ए-672/ ई० डी०/ चै० III देिररय सदन िंक
24.11.09

 ेि में

 ेि योजन असिक री

देिररय
 महोदय,

यह ूसचत सकय ज त है सक ि ख ड कघर बरॉि
लेख क य ालय मदनपुर जनपद देिररय में जी०डी०ए ० ि ख
पोस्टम स्टर बरॉि क एक पद अन रसित के सलये ररि है। क यारत
जी०डी०ए ० कमाच री को रूपय 2745-50-4245
टी०आर० ी०ए० देय है एििं अन्य महिंग ई भत्त इ में ि समल नहीं
है। यह ररसि ि ख पोस्टम स्टर बरॉि के त्य गपत् के क रण
स्थ ई/अस्थ ई तौर पर ररि है। इ पद पर सनयुसि होने पर रूपय
10000/- क बचत पत्/सक न सिक पत् के रूप में स क्योररटी
जम करन असनि या है। स क्योररटी की रकम सनयम पररितान होने
पर सनि ाररत ीम तक बढ न होग ।

आप े अनुरोि है सक कम े कम तीन अभ्यसथायों
क न म िंकन ूची जो उपरोि पद पर चयन हेतु सनम्नसलसखत
आिश्यक ितें पूरी करते हों इ प्रक र प्रेसित करें सक न म िंकन ूची
इ क य ालय मे सदन िंक 23.12.2009 तक अिश्य प्र प्त हो
ज य। इ सतसथ के पश्च त प्र प्त न म िंकन ूची/ आिेदन पत् रद्द
 मझ ज येग एििं इ पर कोई सबच र नहीं होग ।

1. जीडीए की भती हेतु न म िंकन प्र प्त होने की
सतसथ को न्यूनतम आयु 18 ििा तथ असिकतम आयु 60 ििा हो।

2. अभ्यथी की िैिसणक योग्यत 10िीं कि (ह ई
स्कूल) परीि उत्तीणा होन च सहये तथ बोडा द्व र ज री अिंकपत् ि
प्रम ण पत् म न्य होगें।

3. अभ्यथी को मूल ड कघर ग्र म क सनि ी होन
असनि या नहीं है परन्तु सनयुसि हेतु चुने ज ने ि ले अभ्यथी को
सनयुसि के पूिा ड कघर ि ले ग्र म में ड कघर रखने के सलये ुरसित
ि उपयुि भिन उपलब्ि कर न होग ।

4. ड कघर में उपलब्ि नकदी एििं मूल्यि न िस्तुओिं
की ुरि क उत्तरद सयत्ि जीडीए ि ख पोस्टम स्टर की होगी।

5. आिेदन करने ि ले उम्मीदि र/ अभ्यथी को
अन्य रोजग र के श्रोतों े अपनी आय को पूर करन होग सज े
सक उ के प अपन और अपने पररि र क भरण पोिण करने के
सलये पय ाप्त िन हो एििं इ म्बन्ि में घोिण पत् देन होग ।

6. अभ्यथी को ड कघर के क या हेतु उपयुि भिन
होन च सहए जह ाँ भसिष्य में पी० ी०ओ० की व्यिस्थ की ज के।

7. अभ्यथी को सदि सलय नहीं होन च सहए।

9. अभ्यथी क सक ी भी र जसनसतक प सटायों े
 म्बन्ि नहीं होन च सहए एििं सक ी चुन िी पद पर क यारत नहीं
होन च सहये एििं भ रतीय जीिन बीम सनगम क एजेण्ट नहीं होन
च सहए तथ सक ी भी रक री/प्र ईिेट (म न्यत प्र प्त िंस्थ नों
आसद) नौकरी में क यारत नहीं होन च सहए।

10. सजन अभ्यसथायों के आिेदन पत् मय ीम
एििं सनि ाररत िता के अनुरूप ीिे भी इ क य ालय में प्र प्त होगें उन
पर भी सबच र सकय ज येग ।
9 All. Smt. Madhumita Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
513

11. सज ज सत/कोसट के उम्मीदि र के सलये
नोटीसिकेिन सकय गय है उ ी ज सत/कोसट के ही अभ्यथी क
न म िंकन भेज ज य तथ िे ही अभ्यथी केिल ीिे इ क य ालय
को आिेदन कर कते हैं।

12. पुसल में दजा प्र थसमकी के आि र पर कोई
सििेचन लसम्बत नहीं होन च सहए।

13. आिेदन पत् पिंजीकृत पत् े ही भेजने पर
स्िीक र सकय ज येग अन्यथ उ पर कोई सबच र नहीं सकय
ज येग ।
ह०-
अिीिक ड कघर
देिररय मण्डल देिररय - 274001"
Notification Dated 24.11.2010
F.No.37-52/2006-SPB-I
Ministry of Communications & IT
Department of Posts
 Dak Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated 23.09.2010

ADPS (Recruitment)

Office
of
the
Chief
Postmaster
General,

U.P. Circle, Lucknow.

Subject:- Regarding recognition of
various examinations.

Ref:-
Your
letter
No.
Rectt/M8/Ruling/10 dated 31st August, 2009

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your
letter mentioned under reference on the
subject cited above and to inform that:

(i) As per Notification No. 244/2001-TS-III
dated
21st
November,
Ministry of HRD has extended the
recognition of Prathama examination for a
further period of 3 years from 27.10.2007
to 26.10.2010. A circular in the matter is
being issued separately.

(ii) In respect of Recognition of
Purva Mathyama and Uttar Padhyama
Examination conducted by Sampurnanand
Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Varanasi, UP
is concerned, it has to inform that this
matter has been taken up with University
Grant
Commission.
The
requisite
clarification in this regard shall be
furnished as soon as the same is received
from UGC.

(iii) A copy of Ministry of HRD
Notification No. F.7-1/77-SKT.2. dated
22nd November 1979 issued regarding
Adhikari
Pariksha
conducted
by
the
Gurukal Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Vrindavan,
Mathura, UP is enclosed herewith.

(iv) In respect of recognition of
Purva Madhyama and Uttar Padhyama
Examination conducted by the Uttar
Pradesh Madhyamik Sanskrit Parishad,
Lucknow, UP is concerned, it has to inform
that necessary clarification is still awaited
from the Department of Higher Education,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

(v) In respect of Saraswati
Prabadh Pariksha conducted by Bhartiya
Shiksha Parishad, the requisite clarification
is awaited from the Ministry of HRD.

Yours Faithfully,
(Suraj Bhan)
Assistant Director General (SPN)
dated at Lucknow 04.10.2010"

Analysis:

13. The facts are not in issue. It is not
in issue that the notification came to be
issued by the Postal Department for filling
up the post of GDS, Branch Post Master
Baraon wherein the qualification prescribed
was possession of matriculation (High
School) from a recognized Board. It is also
not in dispute that the writ petitioner along
with the original applicant and others
applied in pursuance of the said notification
and a merit list came to be published, in
which as per the averments contained in
para 5 of the reply filed by the Postal
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Department before the Tribunal, it was
asserted.-

"5.
That,
on
receipt
of
applications from the District Employment
Officer Deoria as well as from the
candidates applying direct, the merit list
was prepared for five candidates on the
basis of percentage of marks obtained in
the High School Examination and in the
examination equivalent to High School
Examination. The merit list was prepared
as under:-

SI
No
.

Name
of
candidates
Obtaine
d Marks
Percentag
e
Name
of
Board
1.
Smt.
Indubala
Tripathi

447/600
74.5
HS
&
Intermediat
e Education
U.P. Board
Allahabad
2.
Sri
Vipin
Kumar
Pandey
592/800
74.00
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan,
Allahabad
3.
Smt.
Madhumit
a Pandey
565/800
70.62
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan,
Allahabad
4.
Smt.
Kalpana
Tripathi
407/600
67.83
HS
&
Intermediat
e Education
U.P., Board
Allahabad
5.
Sri Rajesh
Singh

379/600
63.16
HS
&
Intermediat
e Education
U.P. Board
Allahabad

14. The bone of contention between
the parties is whether it was open for the
Postal Department to select the writ
petitioner on the said post on the face of the
fact that the writ petitioner did not possess
matriculation from the recognized Board,
U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate
Education/ICSE/CBSC.

15. To address the said question, we
are required to have a quick survey of the
statutory rules, advertisement and the
notifications issued from time to time on
the said subject. Record reveals there exist
Service Rules for Postal Gramin Dak Sevak
for recruitment of Sub Postmasters and
Branch
Postmasters
prescribing
qualification of matriculation or equivalent
examination. Though we find that the
advertisement does not speak about any
equivalence barring the qualification of
matriculation but what is relevant is the
statutory
rules
which
would
in
all
eventualities prevail in case of any
inconsistency with the advertisement where
the
recruitment
rules
prescribe
for
equivalent qualification. The said aspect is
no more res integra as the same stands
crystallized in the case of Ashish Kumar
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2018 (3) SCC
55 wherein the following was observed.-

"27.
Any
part
of
the
advertisement which is contrary to the
statutory rules has to give way to the
statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the
qualification prescribed in the statutory
rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification
and after being selected for the post
denying appointment to him is arbitrary
and illegal. It is well settled that when there
is variance in the advertisement and in the
statutory rules, it is the statutory rules
which take precedence."

16. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case in Civil Appeal No. 152
of 2022 the Employee State Insurance
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India
decided on 20.01.2022 held as under:-

"It is settled law that if an
advertisement is inconsistent with the
recruitment rules, the rules would prevail,
9 All. Smt. Madhumita Pandey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
515
as held by this Court in Malik Mazhar
Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service
Commission & Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 507."

17. Applying the principles of law as
culled out in the above noted decision in
the facts of the present case, an irresistible
conclusion
stands
drawn
that
the
recruitment rules will have precedence over
the advertisement and the advertisement is
to yield before the recruitment rules.

18. Now the next question which falls
for consideration before us is regarding the
issue of equivalence. Though there happens
to be judgments on the subject that the
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a
University/Deemed
University
nor
Educational Board but it is only a society
registered under the Societies Registration
Act and the degree offered by it has no
sanctity, but what is to be seen is the stand
of the Postal Department based upon the
statutory rules with regard to the issue of
equivalence. Apparently, there happens to
be a notification issued by the Government
of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development,
Department
of
Higher
Education dated 21.11.2006 on the subject
that even in the past and in continuation of
the notification dated 14.05.2004, the
Government
of
India
on
the
recommendation
of
the
higher
level
committee in its meeting convened on
16.10.2006 had taken a decision to extend
the provisional recognition granted to the
Prathama examination being conducted by
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan for the purposes
of
employment
under
the
Central
Government for the post for which desired
qualification is to pass matriculation for a
further
period
of
three
years
from
27.10.2007
to
26.10.2010.
The
said
notification specifically recognizes the
qualification of Prathama examination and
adoptable to the post which are under the
Government of India. Not only this, the
Postal Department has also issued a
circular adopting the said notification and
making
it
applicable
in
the
Postal
Department. On examination, we find that
the qualification of Prathama obtained by
the writ petitioner from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Allahabad is of the year 2006
i.e. the period when the same was made
equivalent to Prathama Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan.

19. Bearing in mind the said factual
backdrop, it becomes explicitly clear that
the Postal Department being the employers
has been treating the qualification of
Prathama obtained from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan to be equivalent to matriculation
and on the said basis the recruitment
exercise stood undertaken pursuant to the
notification dated 24.11.2009 and the writ
petitioner
was
selected
and
granted
appointment. Our views further stands
amplified from the fact that the recruitment
rules
itself
provides
for
equivalent
qualification and once the position being
so, in the backdrop of the notification dated
26.11.2006 as adopted from time to time by
the Postal Department, it cannot be said
that the selection and the appointment of
the writ petitioner was illegal. So far as the
reference so placed upon the judgment in
the case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra) and
Ankita Thakur (supra), the same would
not apply in the facts of the case
particularly when the issue before the Court
in the said cases was with regard to the
issue of relaxation whereas in the present
case, the issue is of equivalence which is
prescribed in the statutory recruitment
rules.

20. Nonetheless, we are also not
required to delve into the issue relatable to
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the validity of the notification dated
21.11.2006 or the statutory rules providing
for equivalence particularly when neither
the same has been subject matter of
challenge nor any pleadings or arguments
have been advanced in that regard.
Moreover, it is also not the case of the
original applicant before the Tribunal or
before us that any fraud, concealment or
misrepresentation has been practised by the
writ petitioner as rather to the contrary on the
basis of the statutory rules and the qualification
as exhibited by the writ petitioner, she was
selected. Once the employers, the Postal
Department had taken a stand before the
Tribunal and is also maintaining it before us
that the qualification of Prathama is equivalent
to matriculation and invariably selections have
been conducted of the candidates who are
possessing the said qualification then it cannot
be said that the selection and appointment of the
writ petitioner was illegal.

21. There is another reason in subscribing
to the contention raised by the writ petitioner
that she is eligible and qualified particularly
when nothing has been brought on record
before us in the present proceedings that the
notification dated 21.11.2006 had been done
away with or there is any change in the
recruitment rules on the said subject whereby
the candidates who possessed Prathama from
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan have been rendered
ineligible.

22. Moreover the question of equivalence
is to be left to the employer and it would not be
a matter of judicial scrutiny by the Courts.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor
Ahmad Rather and others Vs. Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad and others: 2019 (2) SCC
404 has observed as under:-

"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".

23. Accordingly, we are of the firm
opinion that the Tribunal has overlooked the
vital aspects which are germane to the
controversy in question and has erred in law in
setting aside the appointment of the writ
petitioner
while
allowing
the
original
application.

24. In view of the foregoing discussions,
the writ petition stands allowed. The order
dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Tribunal in
O.A. No. 1820 of 2010 is set aside.

25. Consequently, the original application
stands dismissed.

26. The natural and legal consequences
shall follow.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 516
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.09.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 6056 of 2024
With other connected cases

Union of India & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Arun Prakash Srivastava ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners: