# Union of India & Ors v. Jitendra Kumar Bajpai & Anr - **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 556 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-04-19 - **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2754 of 2023 - **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-ors-v-jitendra-kumar-bajpai-anr-50001 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote A. Service Law - Appointment - Eligibility educational qualification - U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 (U.P. Act No. 32 of 2000) - U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 - U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad is a statutory board/body created under the State enactment which clearly empowers the Board to conduct examinations and also grant certificates. To term a statutory Board created under a State enactment to be a Body not recognized, in this case is incorrect. (Para 19, 20) In view of the scheme of U.P. Act No.32 of 2000, U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad is not only a body corporate but is clearly empowered by the State Legislature to grant diplomas and certificates to the persons who have pursued the course of study in an institution recognized by the Board or admitted to its privilege by the Board. U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad is thus statutorily empowered not only to admit the institutions imparting Sanskrit education to the privileges of the Board but also to conduct examinations and grant certificates and diplomas. (Para 17) Respondent no.1-claimant has to his credit certificate by the U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad certifying that he had passed U.P. Madhyama Examination conducted by the said Board. Therefore, respondent no.1-claimant fulfills the eligibility educational qualification for appointment to the post in question. (Para 18) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) Present petition challenges judgment and order dated 07.11.2022 whereby application filed by the respondent no.1- claimant has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to declare the result of respondent no.1-claimant. It has further been directed that in case respondent no.1-claimant is successful in the examination/selection held for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant in the Postal Department, he shall be offered appointment to the post in question. ## Text 556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ---------- (2023) 4 ILRA 556 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 19.04.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. Writ-A No. 2754 of 2023 Union of India & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Jitendra Kumar Bajpai & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Varun Pandey, Devrishi Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Praveen Kumar A. Service Law - Appointment - Eligibility educational qualification - U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 (U.P. Act No. 32 of 2000) - U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 - U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad is a statutory board/body created under the State enactment which clearly empowers the Board to conduct examinations and also grant certificates. To term a statutory Board created under a State enactment to be a Body not recognized, in this case is incorrect. (Para 19, 20) In view of the scheme of U.P. Act No.32 of 2000, U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad is not only a body corporate but is clearly empowered by the State Legislature to grant diplomas and certificates to the persons who have pursued the course of study in an institution recognized by the Board or admitted to its privilege by the Board. U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad is thus statutorily empowered not only to admit the institutions imparting Sanskrit education to the privileges of the Board but also to conduct examinations and grant certificates and diplomas. (Para 17) Respondent no.1-claimant has to his credit certificate by the U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad certifying that he had passed U.P. Madhyama Examination conducted by the said Board. Therefore, respondent no.1-claimant fulfills the eligibility educational qualification for appointment to the post in question. (Para 18) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) Present petition challenges judgment and order dated 07.11.2022 whereby application filed by the respondent no.1- claimant has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to declare the result of respondent no.1-claimant. It has further been directed that in case respondent no.1-claimant is successful in the examination/selection held for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant in the Postal Department, he shall be offered appointment to the post in question. (Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. & Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.) 1. Heard Ms. Alina Masoodi, holding brief of Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1claimant. 2. By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made by the petitioners to the judgment and order dated 07.11.2022 whereby Original Application No. 451 of 2019 filed by the respondent no.1-claimant has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to declare the result of respondent no.1-claimant. It has further been directed that in case respondent no.1-claimant is successful in the examination/selection held for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant in the Postal 4 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Bajpai & Anr. 557 Department, he shall be offered appointment to the post in question. 3. The issue involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass. 4. A notification from the office of the Chief Postmaster General, U.P. was issued on 04.06.2019 whereby limited competitive examination for recruitment to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant from amongst Gramin Daak Sewaks was notified for the vacancies pertaining to the years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and for some period of the year 2018 as well. 5. Clause 3.4 of the advertisement/notification dated 04.06.2019 prescribed the eligibility conditions, according to which Gramin Daak Sewaks possessed of 10+2 standard educational qualification having passed from a recognized University/Board as on 01.04.2018 were eligible. Gramin Daak Sewaks to be eligible for selection to the post in question for the vacancies of the year 201718 ought to be within 30 years of age as on 01.04.2018 if he was a general category candidate and if he was a candidate belonging to reserved category of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, he ought to have been within 35 years of age whereas in case of Other Backward Classes, the candidate concerned should have been within 33 years of age. As per provision contained in Clause 3.4 of the said notification, Gramin Daak Sewak having put in minimum five years of service as on 01.04.2016 were eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant. Clause 3.4 of the notification dated 04.06.2019 is extracted herein below:- "3.4 Eligibility conditions for the vacancies of year 2018 (01-04-2018 to 3112-2018) (i) Educational Qualification : 10+2 standard or 12th Class pass from a recognized University/Board as on 01.04.2018. (ii) Age : GDS should be within 30 years of age (35 years for SC and ST communities and 33 years for OBC community) as on 01.04.2018. (iii) Service eligibility : Must have put in a minimum service of 5 years as on 01.04.2018". 6. Similar eligibility conditions were provided for the vacancies of other years as well. 7. Respondent no.1-claimant accordingly considering himself to be eligible made his application, however, when he did not receive admit card for appearing in the written examination, he came to know that he is not being treated to be eligible for making his application for appointment to the post in question which led him to file an Original Application. During pendency of the said Original Application, an interim order was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 11.07.2019 whereby respondent no.1claimant was permitted to appear in the examination provisionally. In compliance of the said order passed by the Tribunal on 11.07.2019, respondent no.1-claimant was permitted to appear in the examination, however, his result was kept in sealed cover and was not declared. 8. By means of the order under challenge in this petition the Original Application has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal with the directions already noticed above. 9. The sole reason why the Department-petitioners were not treating 558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the respondent no.1-claimant to be eligible for appointment to the post in question according to them is that he was not having requisite eligibility qualification in terms of Clause 3.4 of the notification dated 04.06.2019. As already noted above, so far as the educational qualification for appointment to the post in question is concerned, in terms of Clause 3.4 of the notification dated 04.06.2019, Gramin Daak Sewak, who had 10+2 standard qualification to his credit from a recognized University/Board as on 01.04.2018, was to be treated to be possessed of requisite eligibility qualification. Thus, the only requirement was that the candidate concerned should have passed 10+2 examination as on 01.04.2018 from the recognized University/Board. 10. It is not a case of the petitionersDepartment that the respondent no.1claimant did not have educational qualification of 10+2 pass on 01.04.2018; rather the entire objection of and the exception taken by the Department is that the respondent no.1-claimant has 10+2 examination pass qualification to his credit from the U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow which was not a recognized qualification. 11. The Central Administrative Tribunal has, however, held by passing the impugned judgment and order that the respondent no.1-claimant did fulfill the requisite qualification. 12. It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioners that U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow is not a recognized body and as such it cannot be said that the respondent no.1-claimant was possessed of the requisite educational qualification for appointment to the post in question. 13. The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is highly misconceived. 14. U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow has been created by a State Legislation known as "U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 (U.P. Act No.32 of 2000)". The said enactment received the assent of the Governor of State of U.P on 31.10.2000 and was accordingly published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary on 01.11.2000. Subsection (2) of Section 1 of U.P. Act No.32 of 2000 provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on September 30, 2000. Accordingly, in view of operation of the provision contained in Section 1 (2) of U.P. Act No.32 of 2000, the said Act came into force w.e.f. 30.09.2000. 15. Section 2 (a) defines the Board to mean U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education to be established under Section 3. U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education if translated into Hindi is Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad. Section 3 of the Act provides that with effect from such date as the State Government may by notification appoint, there shall be established a Board to be known as the Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education. Section 3 (2) of U.P. Act No.32 of 2000, clearly provides that the Board shall be a body corporate and shall consist of various members with a Director who shall be Chairman of the Board. Notification constituting the Board was issued on 17.02.2001 which has been made effective w.e.f. 01.03.2001. 4 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Bajpai & Anr. 559 16. Section 9 of the Act prescribes the functions of the Board which inter-alia are to prescribe course of instructions, text books and other instructional material for Prathama, Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama classes in Sanskrit education. Section 9 (c) empowers the Board to grant diplomas or certificates to persons who have pursued a course of study in an institution admitted to the privileges or recognition by the Board and even to those who have studied privately under conditions laid down in the regulations and have passed an examination of the Board. It also empowers the Board to conduct examinations at the end of Prathama, Purva Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama courses. The Board also exercises certain powers to recognize institutions for the purposes of its examination. 17. Accordingly, in view of the scheme of U.P. Act No.32 of 2000, U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad is not only a body corporate but is clearly empowered by the State Legislature to grant diplomas and certificates to the persons who have pursued the course of study in an institution recognized by the Board or admitted to its privilege by the Board. U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad is thus statutorily empowered not only to admit the institutions imparting Sanskrit education to the privileges of the Board but also to conduct examinations and grant certificates and diplomas. 18. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1-claimant has to his credit certificate by the U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad certifying that he had passed U.P. Madhyama Examination conducted by the said Board. 19. To term a statutory Board created under a State enactment to be a Body not recognized, thus, in this case is incorrect. 20. As already observed above, U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad is a statutory board/body created under the State enactment which clearly empowers the Board to conduct examinations and also grant certificates. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no doubt in our mind that the respondent no.1-claimant fulfills the eligibility educational qualification for appointment to the post in question. 22. Learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and order has also made a mention of Circular dated 06/10.02.1970, according to which the examinations of Purva Madhyama, Uttar Madhyama and Shastri conducted by Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi have been recognized for the purpose of employment under the Central Government. 23. We may, at this juncture, indicate that prior to creation of U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad (U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education), Sanskrit institutions in the State of U.P. used to be affiliated to its privileges by Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi which is a State University formed under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. However, after creation of U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad, all the Sanskrit institutions are now affiliated with this Board and as already observed above, the Board is not only statutory in character but also is clearly empowered (i) to admit Sanskrit institutions to its privileges, (ii) to conduct examinations and (iii) to grant certificate or diploma to the candidates who successful pass the examination conducted by the Board. 560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 24. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to take any view other than the view taken by learned Central Administrative Tribunal while passing the judgment and order. 25. The writ petition, in our opinion, lacks merit which is hereby dismissed. 26. We have been informed that the result of respondent no.1-claimant has been declared wherein he has been declared passed, however, he is not being offered appointment to the post in question. Thus we direct that in case there is no other legal impediment, the respondent no.1-claimant shall be offered appointment to the post in question within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ---------- (2023) 4 ILRA 560 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 11.04.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. Writ-A No. 2755 of 2023 Sachin Kumar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Gaurav Mehrotra, Anant Khanna, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Lalta Prasad Misra, Rajesh Tewari Service Law- Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-Uttar Pradesh Technical University Act, 2000- Sections 7, 8-Writ petition against order of suspension of petitioner who was appointed as Registrar as well order passed by the Chancellor constituting inquiry committee for inquiring into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner- The Chancellor has been vested with the authority to place the officer of the University concerned, in certain circumstances, under suspension and the Chancellor also empowered to order an inquiry which may be thought proper for ascertaining as to whether the officer has misconducted himself within the meaning of 'misconduct' as given in Regulation 2.03 - The proceeding as contemplated in Regulation 2.03 read with Regulation 2.04 are in relation to removal of an officer of the University as defined in Section 7 and that would mean that Chancellor can initiate the proceedings only in respect of his removal from the office of Registrar of the University and not for his removal or for effecting any punishment as a Government servant for which it is only the appointing authority of the petitioner as a Government servant, i.e. the St. Government who can take action and pass appropriate orders-No interference with the order of suspension and the order appointing enquiry committee which are impugned in the writ petition. (Para 2, 11, 15, 16, 17, 28) Petition dismissed. (E-15) (Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. & Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.) 1. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the petitioner, learned State Counsel representing the respondent nos.1 and 4, Shri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajesh Tiwari for the respondent no.2, Shri L.P. Misra, leaned counsel representing the respondent no.3 and Shri Atul Dwivedi, learned counsel representing the respondent no.5.