# Smt. Renu v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 512
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-06
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 75 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-renu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-38992
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Appellant passed matriculation
examination
from
Punjab
School
Education
Board,
completed
Adeeb-eMahir from Jamia Urdu - Advertisement
published regarding two year training
programme for A.N.M. - Eligibility criteria
prescribed candidate should have passed
Intermediate Exam from U.P. Board or
equivalent Board - Appellant applied,
selected - During training appellant served
letter requiring to correct particulars
mentioned against her name else she
would not be allowed to appear in
examination
-
Against
her
name,
deficiency indicated was 'Board not valid' -
She approached concerned officials and
told Adeeb-e-Mahir not equivalent to
Intermediate from U.P. Board - She
claimed
stand
of
respondents
was
contrary to Government Orders dated
09.09.1983 and 13.09.1994 - Petition
filed, dismissed - Impugned order - Held,
Government
Order
dated
17.08.2013
related
to
appointment
of
Assistant
Teacher (Urdu), had no application to
present advertisement, for appointment
on said post, equivalence provided in
Government Orders of 1983 and 1984 has
confined to those who obtained prior to
11.08.1997 and even for those posts,
those who obtained degree after 1997 not
eligible - Thus, certificate of petitioner
cannot
be
treated
equivalent
to
Intermediate. (Para 2, 3, 16)

Appeal dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Mohammad Ishtiaque
Ansari, Special Appeal Defective No. 268 of
2014 decided on 11.03.2014

## Text

512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the assessee or if at all it was filed, whether such
filing could be fatal to his case or whether the
assessee was precluded from filing return
though inspection was facilitated to him. The
inter-se
connection
between
regular
proceedings
vis-a-vis
block
assessment
proceedings in the peculiar facts of the case, is a
question that has relevance so as to adjudge the
issue of double jeopardy allegedly faced by the
assessee, as argued on his behalf.

NON-ANSWERING THE
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION WHETHER A
GROUND FOR REVIEW

16. We are of the view that if the
substantial question of law framed as regards
applicability of correct clause/sub-clause of any
Section/sub-Section of Section 158-BB of the
IT Act was not answered by this Court while
deciding the appeal, the same, in itself, cannot
be a ground to review the order, inasmuch as,
the point was left open by the Court to be
decided in appeal after remand, i.e. to say that
the ingredients of the substantial question of law
were to be re-determined by the Appellate
Tribunal pursuant to the order of remand.
Therefore, when Shri Goyal submits that the
Appellate Tribunal, after remand, has accepted
the finding of this Court as regards the ITR
under Section 139 being "non-est" and,
therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal be
also set aside on this ground alone, we are of the
view that the present review application and the
connected appeal are to be decided in the light
of scope of two different and independent
proceedings, i.e. one being an application for
review and the other being a statutory appeal
and, hence, we would do accordingly.

CONCLUSION
17. While applying the ratio laid down
in the aforementioned authorities on the scope
of review, we find that not only the block
assessment order dated 30.09.2004 but also the
assessment order 29.03.2006 and orders passed
subsequently i.e. on 16.08.2005 and 26.06.2006
contained discussion of material that was
available
before
the Authorities/Tribunal.
Merely because this Court interpreted the
record of proceedings in one way or the other,
we do not find that there is any error apparent
on the face of the record so as to justify exercise
of our review jurisdiction. At the same time, the
effect of order dated 16.05.2014 on the
proceedings culminating into passing of the
subsequent order dated 25.08.2014 after
remand, has to be seen while deciding the
connected Income Tax Appeal No.86 of 2015
(Umang Agarwal vs. The Commissioner of
Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad) but, in
any case, we are of the considered view that the
order dated 16.05.2014 does not suffer from an
error apparent on the face of the record so as to
persuade this Court to review the order and take
another view of the matter different from the
one taken by this Court in its order dated
16.05.2014.

18. With the above observations, the
application for review stands rejected.

19. Shekhar B. Saraf,J.: I agree.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 512
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHBAD 06.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 75 of 2025

Smt. Renu ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vinay Kumar Singh
3 All. Smt. Renu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
513
Counsel for the Respondents:
Adarsh Bhushan, Ankit Gaur (S.C.)

Civil Law - Appellant passed matriculation
examination
from
Punjab
School
Education
Board,
completed
Adeeb-eMahir from Jamia Urdu - Advertisement
published regarding two year training
programme for A.N.M. - Eligibility criteria
prescribed candidate should have passed
Intermediate Exam from U.P. Board or
equivalent Board - Appellant applied,
selected - During training appellant served
letter requiring to correct particulars
mentioned against her name else she
would not be allowed to appear in
examination
-
Against
her
name,
deficiency indicated was 'Board not valid' -
She approached concerned officials and
told Adeeb-e-Mahir not equivalent to
Intermediate from U.P. Board - She
claimed
stand
of
respondents
was
contrary to Government Orders dated
09.09.1983 and 13.09.1994 - Petition
filed, dismissed - Impugned order - Held,
Government
Order
dated
17.08.2013
related
to
appointment
of
Assistant
Teacher (Urdu), had no application to
present advertisement, for appointment
on said post, equivalence provided in
Government Orders of 1983 and 1984 has
confined to those who obtained prior to
11.08.1997 and even for those posts,
those who obtained degree after 1997 not
eligible - Thus, certificate of petitioner
cannot
be
treated
equivalent
to
Intermediate. (Para 2, 3, 16)

Appeal dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Mohammad Ishtiaque
Ansari, Special Appeal Defective No. 268 of
2014 decided on 11.03.2014
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, C.J.
& Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. This appeal is directed against
order dated 06.01.2025 passed by learned
Single Judge, whereby the writ petition
filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the
order dated 03.05.2024 issued by the
Secretary, U.P. State Medical Faculty,
Lucknow by which the appellant was
restrained from appearing in the final
examination for the course of Auxiliary
Nurse & Midwife / H.W. (Female) (New
Syllabus) (for short 'A.N.M.) for the
Session 2023-24 has been dismissed.

2. The appellant had passed the
matriculation examination from Punjab
School Education Board in 2010 and
completed her Adeeb-e-Mahir from Jamia
Urdu, Aligarh. An advertisement dated
13.05.2022 was published by the Director
General (Training) Department of Medical
Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh
regarding two year training programme for
the A.N.M. at various training centres
throughout Uttar Pradesh. In the said
advertisement/notice, along with other
details, the eligibility criteria prescribed
that the candidate should have passed
Intermediate Exam (10 + 2) from U.P.
Board
of
Secondary
Education
or
equivalent Board.

3. The appellant applied for the
two year training programme and claims to
have filled out the application form as
prescribed under the advertisement. The
merit list was prepared and the appellant
was selected. Whereafter she was admitted
to the course for the Session 2023-24 and a
training
centre
was
allotted
to
her.
However, during course of training on
08.05.2024, the appellant was served
through respondent no.4 with a letter dated
03.05.2024 requiring the appellant to
correct the particulars or the errors
mentioned against her name by 10.05.2024,
else she alongwith other candidates whose
names appear in the said communication
would not be allowed to appear in the
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examination.
Against
her
name,
the
deficiency indicated was 'Board not valid'.
It was then submitted in the petition that
when
the
appellant
approached
the
concerned officials, she was told that
Adeeb-e-Mahir
is
not
equivalent
to
Intermediate from U.P. Board of Secondary
Education. The appellant claimed that the
said stand of the respondents is contrary to
the Government Orders dated 09.09.1983
and 13.09.1994 issued by the State
Government and that Jamia Urdu, Aligarh
was duly recognised and as such the denial
of the appellant based on her qualification
of Adeeb-e-Mahir was not justified. When
the respondents did not accept the said
plea, the writ petition was filed seeking to
question
the
communication
dated
03.05.2024. The respondents before the
learned
Single
Judge
relied
on
a
Government Order dated 13.08.2013 to
indicate that those who have obtained the
certificate of Adeeb-e-Mahir subsequent to
the year 1997 were not eligible to the
equivalence with Intermediate and that the
Government Order dated 17.08.2013 is not
under challenge.

4. Learned Single Judge, by the
order
impugned,
after
perusing
the
Government
Order
dated
17.08.2013
enclosed with the supplementary counter
affidavit, came to the conclusion that the
appellant was not entitled to any relief and
consequently, dismissed the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the
appellant made submissions that dismissal
of the writ petition by the learned Single
Judge on account of the Government Order
dated 17.08.2013, is not justified as the
same
were
guidelines
pertaining
to
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher (Urdu) and had no application to
the admission to A.N.M. training course
and therefore, the order impugned deserves
to be quashed and set aside.

6. Submissions were made that the
Government Orders dated 09.09.1983 and
13.09.1994 clearly provide for equivalence
of Adeeb-e-Mahir with the Intermediate
(10+2) Examination and as Jamia Urdu is a
recognised
Board,
the
order
dated
03.05.2024,
holding
the
petitioner's
candidature as invalid cannot be sustained.
Reliance was placed on a Division Bench
judgement of this Court in State of U.P.
and 3 others Vs. Mohammad Ishtiaque
Ansari Special Appeal Defective No. 268
of 2014 decided on 11.03.2014.

7. Learned counsel for the
respondents supported the order impugned.
Submissions were made that the reliance
placed by the appellant on the Government
Orders dated 09.09.1983 and 13.09.1994 is
totally misplaced inasmuch as the same had
no application to the equivalence of Adeebe-Mahir
with
that
of
Intermediate
Examination, as the said Government
Orders
had
very
limited
application
pertaining to knowledge of Urdu and
nothing more and, therefore, the plea raised
in this regard has no substance. Further
submissions have been made that the
appellant had suppressed material facts
while applying for the training course
inasmuch as in the enrolment form, she
indicated having passed her Intermediate
Exam from U.P. Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, Allahabad, which
was factually incorrect as she was claiming
equivalence based on her having passed
Adeeb-e-Mahir from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh
and, therefore, as her claim in the
enrolment form did not match with her
marksheets, in the communication dated
03.05.2024, it was rightly indicated 'Board
not valid' which necessarily meant that the
3 All. Smt. Renu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
515
indication made in the enrolment form did
not match with her marksheets.

8. Submissions have been made
that even if the Government Order dated
17.08.2013 has no application to the
training as A.N.M., the equivalence sought
through the two Government Orders of
1983 and 1994 has no basis and as such,
the appellant being not qualified, the appeal
deserves dismissal.

9. We have considered the
submissions made by counsel for the
parties and have perused the material
available on record.

10. The advertisement dated
13.05.2022
(Annexure-3)
inter
alia
indicated the educational qualification as
under:-

"ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj
izns'k vFkok led{k cksMZ dh b.VjehfM,V
ijh{kk 1⁄410+21⁄2 mRrh.kZ dh gksA"

11. A perusal of the above would
reveal that the candidate was required to
have passed Intermediate Examination
(10+2) from U.P. Board of Secondary
Education
or
equivalent
Board.
The
appellant filled up the enrolment form
(Annexure-5)
by
indicating
her
Intermediate Board as 'U.P. Board of High
School
and
Intermediate
Education,
Allahabad'. Admittedly, the said indication
made was factually incorrect as the
appellant had not passed the Intermediate
Examination conducted by the U.P. Board
of
High
School
and
Intermediate
Education. Instead the appellant relied on
having passed Adeeb-e-Mahir from Jamia
Urdu, Aligarh in the year 2018. It is
apparent that the declaration made in the
enrolment form was factually incorrect and,
therefore, the respondents were justified in
indicating
the
deficiency
in
its
communication dated 03.05.2024 with
'Board not valid' and as the Board declared
by the appellant in the enrolment form did
not match with her marksheet and,
therefore, no exception can be taken to the
issuance of the communication dated
03.05.2024 on the said count.

12. The submission made that as
Adeeb-e-Mahir has been declared as
equivalent to the Intermediate Examination
by Government Orders of 1983 and 1994,
the respondents were bound to hold the
appellant as eligible and permit her to
appear in the examination and continue
with her training, also apparently has no
substance. The relevant part of the
Government Order dated 09.09.1983 reads
as under:-

" eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS
fd jkT;iky egksn; tkfe;k mnZw] vyhx<+
}kjk iznRr fuEufyf[kr ijh{kkvksa dks muds
lEeq[k vafdr fLFkfr ds vuqlkj jkT;k/khu
lsokvksa esa lh/kh HkrhZ ds iz;kstuksa ds fy,
ekU;rk fn;s tkus dh Lohd`fr lg"kZ iznku
djrs gSaA`

izek.k&i=
dk
uke
ekU;rk dk Lo:i

1
& vnhc
f
tu
inksa
ij
gkbZ
Ldwy@eSVz~
hdqys'ku
Lrj
dk
mnwZ
dk
Kku
vko';d
gks] mu ij
fu;qDr ds
iz;kstuksa
ds
fy,
ekU;rkA
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2
&vnhc&,
&ekfgj

,
sls inksa ij
fu;qfDr ds
iz;kstuksa
ds
fy,
ekU;rk
ftu
ij
b.VjehfM
,V
Lrj
dk
mnwZ
dk
Kku
vko';d
gksA

Hkonh;
cky d`".k prqosZnh] "

13. A perusal of the above
Government
Order
indicates
that
permission
has
been
granted
for
recognising
Adeeb-e-Mahir
for
appointment
to
the
post
on
which
knowledge of Urdu of Intermediate level is
necessary. The recognition was confined to
such posts where the requirement of
knowledge of Urdu of Intermediate level is
necessary. The said Government Order
cannot be read as having provided for
equivalence
of
Adeeb-e-Mahir
to
Intermediate Examinations for all purposes.

14. Similarly, the Government
Order dated 13.09.1994 provided that
Adeeb-e-Kamil from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh
was being recognised alongwith Adeeb-eMahir for appointment to the post of
Assistant Teachers for teaching Urdu
language and the same be treated as
equivalent to Intermediate with Urdu
subject
/
B.A.
Urdu.
The
limited
equivalence granted was confined to the
Urdu language and that also limited to the
qualification pertaining to knowledge of
Urdu language at Intermediate level and
not equivalent to Intermediate for all
purposes.

15. The reliance placed on the
Division Bench judgement in the case of
Mohammad Ishtiaque Ansari (supra) is
also misplaced, as the said judgement
pertains to eligibility for the post of 'Urdu
Translator-cum-Junior Clerk' wherein the
requirement
was
having
passed
the
Intermediate Examination with Urdu as one
of the subject of the Board of High School
and, therefore, the said judgement would
have no application to the case in hand
where the knowledge of Urdu is not one of
the parameters for seeking admission to the
training.

16. In view of the above fact
situation, though there may be some
substance in the submissions made by
counsel
for
the
appellant
that
the
Government
Order
dated
17.08.2013
related to appointment to the post of
Assistant Teacher for teaching Urdu, the
same had no application to the present
notification/advertisement, the fact of the
matter is that even for appointment on the
post of Assistant Teacher for Urdu
language, the equivalence as provided in
the Government Orders of 1983 and 1994
has been confined to those who have
obtained the same prior to 11.08.1997 and
even for those posts, now those who have
obtained the degree after 1997 are not
eligible.

17. Be that as it may, in view of
the discussions made hereinbefore, it
cannot be accepted that the Adeeb-e-Mahir
from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is equivalent to
Intermediate (10+2) of U.P. Board of
Secondary Education or equivalent Board
and as such, the dismissal of the writ
3 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Prof. Bimal Jaiswal & Ors.
517
petition by the learned Single Judge
cannot be faulted.

18. The appeal has no substance,
the same is, therefore, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 517
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 89 of 2025

State of U.P. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Prof. Bimal Jaiswal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Nilaya Gupta, Anurag Kumar Singh

Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Chapter VIII - Rule 5 - U.P. St.
University Act, 1973 - Sections 8(1),
12(12), 30(2), 31 & 66-A - U.P. Public
Service
(Reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled
Tribes
and
others
Backward Classes) Act, 1994 - Section
3(1)(c) - U.P. King George's Medical
University Act, 2002 - Sections 13 &
113(1) - Intra court Appeal - against order of
writ court - Allegations were made against a
Professor
regarding
irregularities
in
his
appointment to a reserved O.B.C. post and
subsequent administrative misconduct. - the St.
Government constituted a committee to conduct
an inquiry - challenged in writ petition - Writ
Court allowed the writ petition holding that the
St. Government lacked jurisdiction to conduct
the inquiry under the U.P. St. University Act,
1973 - Special Appeal - court held, - the St.
Government has power to institute an inquiry in
respect
of
allegations
levelled
against
respondent no. 1 - however, Inquiry committee
head by the Vice-Chanceller of the Lucknow
University is not correct - hence, judgment of
the Writ Court is set aside to the extent it
denied the St. Government's authority to
conduct an inquiry, - and Office Memorandum
dated 08.01.2025 was quashed, permitting the
St. Government to reconstitute the inquiry
committee under Section 8 of the Act - Special
appeal, partly allowed. (Para - 21, 22, 25)

Appeal Partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Neeraj Awasthi & ors.: (2006) 1
SCC 667,

2. Nishith Rai Vs St. of U.P.: (2018) 3 All.L.J.
683,

3. Anand Kumar Mishra Vs St. of U.P.: 2022 SCC
OnLine All 311

4. Rakesh Ranjan Verma Vs St. of Bihar: 1992
Suppl. 2 SCC 343,

5. Smt. Rekha Yadav Vs St. of U.P.: 2012 LCD
1017

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi J. & Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Kuldeep Pati
Tripathi, the learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Shri Nishant Shukla,
the learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants, Shri Sandeep Dixit Senior
Advocate assisted by Shri Nilaya Gupta
Advocate, the learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1 and Shri Anurag Kumar
Singh, the learned Counsel for the
University of Lucknow.

2. By means of the instant Intra
Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule
5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
the appellants - State of U.P. and Special
Secretary, Department of Higher Education,