# State of U.P. & Anr v. Khusaboo Kumari Gupta

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 445
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-31
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 595 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-khusaboo-kumari-gupta-49678
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Service Matter - Uttar Pradesh
Rural Development (Gram Sewak) Service
Rules
1980
-
Candidature
of
the
respondent rejected on the ground that
she do not possess CCC Certificate from
DOEACC/NIELIT - Held - candidature of
the writ petitioners cannot be rejected on
the ground that she do not possess CCC
Certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT as in the
Rules or even in the advertisement issued,
there was no mention of qualification of
CCC
Certificate
from
any
specified
Institute i.e. DOEACC/NIELIT - without
mentioning in the advertisement, the
Institute from where that certificate has
to be, on this ground the candidature of a
candidate could not be rejected - A
candidate
is
supposed
to
know the
relevant
Rules
under
which
the
recruitment is sought to be made - Interdepartmental communications, which are
not referred to in the advertisement, are
not supposed to be in the knowledge of a
candidate (Para 20,21) (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2020)4 SCC 86

## Text

2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Khusaboo Kumari Gupta
445
appeal has been heard, no case for
interference with the decree is made out.

76. The appeal fails and is dismissed
with costs throughout.

77. Let a decree be drawn up,
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 445
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal No. 595 of 2022
with Special Appeal No. 1206 of 2019 & Special
Appeals No.98 and 154 of 2020

State of U.P. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Khusaboo Kumari Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh (Addl. A.G.), Sri Sudhanshu
Srivastava(Addl. C.S.C.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri H.N. Singh(Sr. Advocate), Sri Om Prakash, Sri
Jitendra Sarin, Sri Pushpendra Singh, Ms.
Khushboo Kumari Gupta, Sri Pramod Kumar(In
Person)

Civil Law - Service Matter - Uttar Pradesh
Rural Development (Gram Sewak) Service
Rules
1980
-
Candidature
of
the
respondent rejected on the ground that
she do not possess CCC Certificate from
DOEACC/NIELIT - Held - candidature of
the writ petitioners cannot be rejected on
the ground that she do not possess CCC
Certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT as in the
Rules or even in the advertisement issued,
there was no mention of qualification of
CCC
Certificate
from
any
specified
Institute i.e. DOEACC/NIELIT - without
mentioning in the advertisement, the
Institute from where that certificate has
to be, on this ground the candidature of a
candidate could not be rejected - A
candidate
is
supposed
to
know the
relevant
Rules
under
which
the
recruitment is sought to be made - Interdepartmental communications, which are
not referred to in the advertisement, are
not supposed to be in the knowledge of a
candidate (Para 20,21) (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2020)4 SCC 86

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
& Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

ORDER

1. This order will dispose of bunch of
appeals bearing Special Appeal Nos.1206
of 2019, 98 and 154 of 2020 and 595 of
2022 as the common legal issues are
involved.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Special Appeal No. 595 of 2022

2. The writ petitioner/respondent
herein, who appeared in person, was a
candidate
for
the
post
of
Village
Development Officer (hereinafter referred
to as "VDO"). The writ petition was filed
by her as her candidature was rejected,
after the recommendation made by the
Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate
Selection
Commission, on the ground that she does
not
have
CCC
Certificate
from
DOEACC/NIELIT. The writ petition was
allowed by the learned Single Judge.

3. To put the record straight, it needs to be
mentioned
that
earlier
the
petitioner
approached this Court by filing writ
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition bearing Writ-A No.14181 of 2018
as she was not allowed to participate in the
interview. The said writ petition was
dismissed on June 27, 2018. However, in
Special Appeal No.1165 of 2018 filed by
her, she was allowed to participate in the
interview and her result was directed to be
placed before the Court. The aforesaid
appeal was finally disposed of on April 29,
2019. When the mark-sheet of the writ
petitioner was placed before the Court,
learned counsel for the State submitted that
on the basis of marks secured by the writ
petitioner in interview, her position in merit
list shall be examined and final result shall
be communicated to her.

Special Appeal No.1206 of 2019

4. The writ petitioners/respondent
Nos.1 to 17 in the present case were ExServicemen and were candidates to the post
of VDO. The issue again was with
reference
to
qualification
of
CCC
Certificate. The stand of the State that the
same
was
required
only
from
DOEACC/NIELIT was not accepted and
the direction was issued by the learned
Single Judge that the candidature of the
writ petitioners will not be ignored only on
the ground that their CCC Certificates are
not issued from DOEACC/NIELIT.

Special Appeal Nos. 98 and 154 of
2020

5. The writ petitions, on identical
facts, were disposed of by the learned
Single Judge in the same terms as its earlier
judgment in Writ Petition No.1782 of 2019
titled as Pramod Kumar and others v. State
of U.P. and others against which Special
Appeal No.1206 of 2019 is pending.

ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE

6. The controversy in the writ
petitions revolves around the qualification
required for the post of VDO. It is again
limited to CCC Certificate. Firstly, as to
whether that qualification is required and
secondly as to whether it is required only
from DOEACC/NIELIT or some other
Institute as well. The learned Single Judge
held in favour of the writ petitioners. The
State is in appeal.

7. At the time of hearing, when this
Court had asked a specific question to the
learned counsel for the State as to whether
there is any other writ petition/appeal
pending in this Court raising the same legal
issues, the answer was in negative.

SUBMISSIONS

8. Argument raised by the learned
counsel
for
the
State
is
that
the
advertisement for the post of VDO was
issued
vide
Advertisement
No.3
(Exam)/2016. The same clearly provided
the qualifications required for the post,
which
included
CCC
Certificate
in
computer operation. It was provided for in
terms of the Government Order issued by
the Government on March 27, 2012. As it
was approved by the Governor, hence the
qualification is required for the post. The
aforesaid Government Order was followed
by the another Government Order dated
July 23, 2013, wherein it was specifically
provided that CCC Certificate has to be
from the DOAECC. The argument is that
none of the respondents in the appeals
possesses
the
said
certificate
from
DOAECC/NIELIT. Hence, they were not
eligible and have been wrongly directed to
be appointed by learned Single Judge. In
support of the argument, reliance was
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mukul Kumar Tyagi v.
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Khusaboo Kumari Gupta
447
State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
(2020)4 SCC 86.

9. In response, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents and also the
respondent, who appeared in person,
submitted that the post in question is
governed by the Uttar Pradesh Rural
Development (Gram Sewak) Service Rules
1980 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Rules"). For the post in question, CCC
Certificate is not the requisite qualification.
Hence, it could not have been added in the
advertisement. Still, what is sought in the
advertisement is merely a certificate and
not the Institute from where it should be. In
fact, no Institute as such can be specified.
The required certificate should be from
recognized
Institute.
It
was
further
submitted that by communication issued by
the Secretary, Government of U.P., the
statutory Rules cannot be amended. Rules
framed
under
Article
309
of
the
Constitution of India cannot be changed
only by writing letters. Proper procedure
has to be followed. What is evident from
letter dated March 27, 2012 issue by
Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. is
that the Governor has granted permission
for addition of CCC Certificate as a
qualification
for
the
post
of VDO.
Thereafter, due process was to be followed
for amendment of Rules. Nothing was
done, as the Officers in the State do not
follow the law or they are law into
themselves. Another communication was
sent by Special Secretary, Government of
U.P. dated July 23, 2103 whereby sanction
was granted for recruitment to the vacant
post. In this letter, it was mentioned that
CCC Certificate has to be from DOEACC.

10. The submission is that the
qualification having not been prescribed in
the Rules, the same could not be a ground
to reject the candidature of the respondents.
Anything stated in the advertisement,
which is contrary to the Rules, has to be
ignored, as the legal position is otherwise
that the qualification prescribed in the
Rules
will
be
applicable,
even
if
advertisement is different. It was submitted
that in the advertisement what is required is
only CCC Certificate and no other
condition. However, the candidature is
sought to be rejected on the ground that
CCC Certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT
only is required. It was mentioned in interdepartmental communication. Though the
letter dated July 23, 2013 is sought to be
relied upon for the purpose, still in the
advertisement
issued
nothing
was
mentioned. The candidate is not supposed
to know what is mentioned in the interdepartmental communication. He can be
knowing only the Rules which are notified
and not otherwise.

11. It was submitted that in ExServicemen (Re-employment in Central,
Civil Services and Post) Rules, 1979,
amendment was carried out on February
12, 1986, wherein it was provided that if
sufficient number of candidates holding the
requisite qualifications are not available,
the qualification can be relaxed subject to
the condition that such relaxation will not
affect the level of performance.

12. In the case in hand, the
respondents are having the qualification
equivalent to CCC Certificate and in no
way
their
performance
can
be
compromised.
13. In response, it was submitted by learned
counsel for the State that when the payscales
were
revised
by
VIth
Pay
Commission, it was recommended by the
Commission that the qualification of CCC
Certificate is required to be added. It was
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the reason that the entire country was
going
in
digital
mode.
Hence,
for
government
employees'
knowledge
of
computer was required. No question could
be raised by the candidates, as it is for
improving efficiency in discharging of their
duties to serve the public.

DISCUSSION

14. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the paper book.

15. The undisputed fact on record is
that an advertisement for recruitment to the
post of VDO was issued providing for the
following qualifications :

"अदनवायष अहषिा- 1- दवज्ञान या कृदर् के
साथ माध्यदमक दक्षक्षा पररर्ि, उ०प्र० की
इांटरमीदडएट परीक्षा या राज्यपाल द्वारा उसके
समकक्ष मान्यिा प्राप्त कोई परीक्षा उिीणष की
हो।

2- कम्प्यूटर सांचालन में "सी० सी० सी०"
प्रमाण पत्र की अहषिा।"

16. The post in question is governed
by the Rules where the qualification for the
post provided for is as under:

"Academic qualification- A candidate
for direct recruitment to the service must
have passed the Intermediate examination
with Science, or Agriculture, from the U.P.
Board of High School and Intermediate
Education or an examination recognised by
the Governor as equivalent thereto."

17. The origin of qualification of
CCC Certificate for the post in question is a
communication dated March 27, 2012
issued by Principal Secretary, Government
of Uttrar Pradesh to Commissioner, Village
Development, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow,
which mentions that Governor has granted
approval for addition of CCC Certificate
along with existing qualifications for the
post of VDO. The relevant para thereof
reads as under:

"उपयुषि दवर्य के सम्बांध में मुझे यह
कहने का दनिेश हुआ है दक दवि दवभाग के
शासनािेश
सांख्या-
वे०आर०-2-1987/िस54(एम)/2008 टी०सी०, दिनाांक 22 नवम्बर,
2011 द्वारा दलये गये दनणषय के क्रम में ग्राम
दवकास दवभाग के ग्राम दवकास अदधकारी के
पिोां पर विषमान में दनधाषररि शैदक्षक अहषिा के
साथ कम्प्यूटर सांचालन में 'सी०सी०सी०' प्रमाण
पत्र की अहषिा को सस्िदलि दकये जाने की श्री
राज्यपाल से महोिय सहर्ष स्ीकृदि प्रिान करिे
हैं।"

18. Vide subsequent letter dated July
23, 2013 when the vacant posts were
sanctioned
for
recruitment,
it
was
mentioned that CCC Certificate was
required from DOEACC/NIELIT.

19. It is in view of the aforesaid two
letters, which the State claims to be
Government Orders, that the candidature of
the respondents is sought to be rejected on
the ground that they do not possess CCC
Certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT. It was
not disputed that all of them have CCC
Certificate issued by different Institutes
from where they passed the same after
getting the training. The fact remains that in
the Rules or even in the advertisement
issued, there is no mention of qualification
of CCC Certificate from any specified
Institute
i.e.
DOEACC/NIELIT.
A
candidate is supposed to know the relevant
Rules under which the recruitment is
sought to be made and has to be qualified
in
terms
thereof.
Inter-departmental
communications, which are not referred to
2 All. C/M National Inter College, Barabanki Vs. J.D. of Edu., Faizabad & Ors.
449
in the advertisement, are not supposed to be
in the knowledge of a candidate.

20. The learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition bearing Writ-A No.13847
of 2021 on the ground that in earlier round
of
litigation
the
State-respondents
themselves had given clear statement that
CCC
Certificate
was
not
essential
qualification which was clear from the
Rules and also nothing that was placed on
record contrary to that. While writ petitions
bearing Nos.1782, 5076 and 5140 of 2019
were allowed by the learned Single Judge
holding that the candidature of the writ
petitioners cannot be ignored on the ground
that they do not possess CCC Certificate
from DOEACC/NIELIT as the Rules and
the advertisement do not prescribe so.

21. We find merit in the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the State
that
on
account
of
large
scale
computerisation
in
Government
functioning, qualification of computer
knowledge is must at all levels in the State
and in case such a qualification was
prescribed and all the candidates knowing
fully had participated in the process of
selection, no issue can be permitted to be
raised. Though it was claimed that the VIth
Pay
Commission
suggested
this
qualification to be added, however, without
mentioning in the advertisement, the
Institute from where that certificate has to
be, on this ground the candidature of a
candidate could not be rejected. CCC
Certificate as such may be required,
however, condition that it should be from
DOEACC/NIELIT cannot stand to judicial
scrutiny.

22. So far as the judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukul Kumar
Tyagi's case (supra) is concerned, the
same will not come to rescue of the State
for the reason that the fact as pleaded
before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was
that there is no other Institute except
DOEACC/NIELIT which issues CCC
Certificate. In the case in hand, the
respondents have produced certificates
from
different
Institutes
and
the
qualification as such has not been denied
by the learned counsel for the State.

23. While concurring with the view
expressed by learned Single Judge in WritA No.1782 of 2019 and in Writ-A
No.13847 of 2021, the present appeals are
disposed of and the writ petitioners are
held entitled to the relief, as granted by
learned Single Judge.

24. As the issues under consideration
pertain to an advertisement issued way
back in the year 2016 for which the
selection process was concluded in the
year 2019, any other writ petition filed
claiming
the
same
relief
will
be
considered on its own merits including the
principle of delay and laches.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 449
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 3597 of 2009

C/M National Inter College, Barabanki
 ...Petitioner
Versus
J.D. of Edu., Faizabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Neerav Chitravanshi