# Vijay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 973
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-25
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 232 of 2022
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48615
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Selection/Recruitment -
U.P. Recruitment to Services (Age Limit)
(Tenth Amendment) Rules, 2012 - Rule 6
- U.P. Lekhpal Services Rules, 2006 - Rule
3(n), 10, 14 - U.P. Subordinate Services
Selection Commission Act, 2014; U.P.
General Clauses Act, 1904 - Section
4(50).

The
PET
examination
is
a
general
examination and is not held for any
specific service under any service rules. It
is conducted under the U.P. Subordinate
Services Selection Commission Act, 2014
(Commission Act). It does not make any
person entitled for any post whatsoever,
but, is only a preliminary test taken for
permitting a person to apply for the ClassIII vacancies going to be advertised
thereafter, till the said PET examination
result is in force. The Commission advertised
and initiates the selection process under
different service rules. It was open for the State
Government as well as for the Commission to
proceed or not to proceed for the selection of
the Revenue Lekhpal under their service rules.
(Para 7)

In case of non advertisement of the said
vacancies petitioner had no vested rights.
The right vested in the petitioner after
clearing PET examination was only to
submit application and appear in the
selection process for the vacancies under
different rules, as advertised by the
Commission. Therefore, it cannot be said that
any selection process was initiated under the
Lekhpal Rules, 2006 merely by conducting PET
examination.

U.P. Lekhpal Services Rules, 2006: Rule 14
provides
that
appointing
authority
shall
determine
and
intimate
to
the
selection
committee the number of vacancies to be filled
up during course of the year of recruitment. The
selection committee stands replaced by the
Selection Commission as per the Commission
Act. Therefore, it is for the selection commission
to advertise the vacancies as per relevant
service rules. Thus, the selection process for the
post of Revenue Lekhpal cannot be said to have
started with the PET examination but initiated
when the same were advertised on 05.01.2022
by the Commission. (Para 7)

Therefore, there is no force in the first
submission that, the selection process should be
treated to have started in the month of June,
2021, when the PET examination was conducted
by the Commission.
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. U.P. Lekhpal Services Rules, 2006 -
Rule 10 - U.P. Recruitment to Services
(Age Limit) (Tenth Amendment) Rules,
2012 - Rule 6, clearly provide that a candidate
must not have attained more than 40 years of
age as on first day of July in calendar year in
which the vacancies are advertised.

In the present case the vacancies are advertised
on 05.01.2022. The person must not have
attained the age of more than 40 years as on
first of July of the year 2022. Admittedly,
petitioner is more than 40 years as on
01.07.2022. (Para 9)

C. Words and Phrases - 'calendar year',
'year of recruitment', 'year' - U.P.
Lekhpal Ser

## Text

5 All. Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
973
retirement benefits as per the rules. Since
petitioner has been made to suffer for more
than 2 decades not for very genuine reasons
but for this long drawn litigation, he is also
held entitled to 7% simple interest over and
above the retiral dues to be calculated as a
consequence of the order being passed
today. The necessary exercise shall be done
by the respondent concerned within a
period of three months including the
calculation of interest and the same be paid
to
the
petitioner
within
six
weeks
thereafter.

28. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, petition stands allowed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A973
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED LUCKNOW 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

WRIT A No. 232 of 2022

Vijay Kumar Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant
Sri Manish Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Ran Vijay
Singh

A. Service Law - Selection/Recruitment -
U.P. Recruitment to Services (Age Limit)
(Tenth Amendment) Rules, 2012 - Rule 6
- U.P. Lekhpal Services Rules, 2006 - Rule
3(n), 10, 14 - U.P. Subordinate Services
Selection Commission Act, 2014; U.P.
General Clauses Act, 1904 - Section
4(50).

The
PET
examination
is
a
general
examination and is not held for any
specific service under any service rules. It
is conducted under the U.P. Subordinate
Services Selection Commission Act, 2014
(Commission Act). It does not make any
person entitled for any post whatsoever,
but, is only a preliminary test taken for
permitting a person to apply for the ClassIII vacancies going to be advertised
thereafter, till the said PET examination
result is in force. The Commission advertised
and initiates the selection process under
different service rules. It was open for the State
Government as well as for the Commission to
proceed or not to proceed for the selection of
the Revenue Lekhpal under their service rules.
(Para 7)

In case of non advertisement of the said
vacancies petitioner had no vested rights.
The right vested in the petitioner after
clearing PET examination was only to
submit application and appear in the
selection process for the vacancies under
different rules, as advertised by the
Commission. Therefore, it cannot be said that
any selection process was initiated under the
Lekhpal Rules, 2006 merely by conducting PET
examination.

U.P. Lekhpal Services Rules, 2006: Rule 14
provides
that
appointing
authority
shall
determine
and
intimate
to
the
selection
committee the number of vacancies to be filled
up during course of the year of recruitment. The
selection committee stands replaced by the
Selection Commission as per the Commission
Act. Therefore, it is for the selection commission
to advertise the vacancies as per relevant
service rules. Thus, the selection process for the
post of Revenue Lekhpal cannot be said to have
started with the PET examination but initiated
when the same were advertised on 05.01.2022
by the Commission. (Para 7)

Therefore, there is no force in the first
submission that, the selection process should be
treated to have started in the month of June,
2021, when the PET examination was conducted
by the Commission.
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. U.P. Lekhpal Services Rules, 2006 -
Rule 10 - U.P. Recruitment to Services
(Age Limit) (Tenth Amendment) Rules,
2012 - Rule 6, clearly provide that a candidate
must not have attained more than 40 years of
age as on first day of July in calendar year in
which the vacancies are advertised.

In the present case the vacancies are advertised
on 05.01.2022. The person must not have
attained the age of more than 40 years as on
first of July of the year 2022. Admittedly,
petitioner is more than 40 years as on
01.07.2022. (Para 9)

C. Words and Phrases - 'calendar year',
'year of recruitment', 'year' - U.P.
Lekhpal Services Rules, 2006: Rule 3(n)
- The term 'calendar year' and term 'year of
recruitment' are entirely different and the
term 'year of recruitment' is defined u/Rule
3(n) of the Lekhpal Rules, 2006, which means
12 months commencing from first day of July
of a calendar year. From the perusal of the
same it is clear that the 'year of recruitment'
and a 'calendar year' even as per Rule 3(n)
are distinct and separate. The two cannot be
interchanged.

Year of recruitment is relevant for Rule
14 and not for determination of age
u/Rule 10 or Rule 6 of Age Limit Rules.

U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904: Section
4(50) - The term 'year' is also defined u/s
4(50), which means a "year" shall mean a
year reckoned according to the British
calendar. There is no reason to interpret the
word 'calendar year' in any other manner.
(Para 9)

D. Report of the Calendar Reform
Committee
of
GOI,
submitted
on
10.11.1955 - Petitioner submits that in
the said report the committee referred to
number of calendars in use in India and
did not find favour with the English
calendar
for
use
in
India
and
recommended use of Indian calendar.
Therefore, the term calendar year as used
in Rule 10 should not be read as British
calendar but should be treated to be
Indian Calendar. (Para 10)
Hon'ble Court held that the said report is only
recommendatory in nature. There is nothing
to show that the same was ever accepted and
enforced, at any point of time. There is
nothing to show that while drafting or
enforcing the applicable rules, the State
Government ever relied upon the said report
or referred to any Indian calendar. The use
of the month of July in rules itself shows
that rules refer to the British calendar
and not to an Indian calendar.

Therefore, the term 'calendar year' in
which the vacancies are advertised is
the year from the 1st of January to 31st
December and, it is the first day of July
of the said calendar year on which the
person should not have attained the age
of more than 40 years. The same in the
present case is 2022 as the vacancies were
advertised on 05.01.2022. (Para 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Malik Mazar Sultan Vs U.P. Public Service
Commission, 2006 (9) SCC 507 (Para 10)

2. Chairman Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs Pure
Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., 2007 (8)
SCC 705 (Para 10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned
counsel for petitioner assisted by Sri
Gaurav Upadhyaya, Advocate and Sri Dilip
Pandey, Advocate. Sri Ran Vijay Singh,
learned counsel is appearing for respondent
Commission and learned Standing Counsel
is present for the State.

2. Petitioner has approached this
Court
praying
for
a
mandamus
commanding the respondent no.2 U.P.
Subordinate
Services
Selection
Commission,
Lucknow
(hereinafter
referred to as 'Commission') to allow the
petitioner to participate in the main
5 All. Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
975
examination for the post of Revenue
Lekhpal.

3. The facts of the case as per the writ
petition are that the Commission held a
common Preliminary Entrance Test (PET)
in the month of June, 2021, for facing
selections for any Class-III post, to be filled
up later through the Commission. Petitioner
appeared in the said PET examination held
on 17.06.2021 and cleared the same. Thus,
he became entitled for appearing in
selection examination to be held for any
Class-III posts by the Commission. On
24.07.2021 Commission issued a proposed
program for selections for different posts
scheduled
to
be
conducted
by
the
Commission before March, 2022. The
selection for the post of Revenue Lekhpal
was proposed to be held in November,
2021. The same, however, could not be
advertised in November, 2021 but was
advertised on 05.01.2022 by Advertisement
No.1 of 2022. Amongst other conditions
for eligibility to appear in the selection
process for the post of Revenue Lekhpal,
one of the condition initially advertised on
05.01.2022 was, that, the age of candidate
on 01.07.2021 should not be less than 18
years and not more than 40 years.
Therefore, petitioner was qualified as per
the
said
advertisement.
The
said
advertisement, however, was later modified
and provided the maximum age limit of 40
years as on 01.07.2022, as per the U.P.
Recruitment to Services (Age Limit) (Tenth
Amendment) Rules, 2012. Admittedly,
petitioner is of more than 40 years on
01.07.2022 as his date of birth is
15.05.1982, and, thus, he has approached
this court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner was entitled as per
the first advertisement and the change
made in the advertisement is arbitrary and
illegal. As per the calendar year petitioner
ought to be held entitled to appear in the
examination. He further submits that even
otherwise the selection process had started
when the PET examination was taken in the
month of June, 2021 and therefore, the
same is the relevant date for the selection
process.

5. Opposing the same, learned
Standing Counsel submits that PET is
general combined test taken for all ClassIII posts. The purpose of PET is to reduce
the huge number of candidates appearing
for all Class-III posts advertised by the
Commission,
which
was
putting
unnecessary burden on the Commission.
He further submits that the validity of the
PET is already considered and affirmed in
number of writ petitions by this Court.
Therefore, the same cannot be treated to be
initiation of selection process for a
particular post and initiation for selection
of a particular post starts only when the
vacancies of the said post under its rules
are duly notified, which in the present case
were advertised on 05.01.2022. Therefore,
as per the U.P. Lekhpals Services Rules,
2006 (Lekhpal Rules, 2006), the calendar
year
would be
from
01.01.2022
to
31.12.2022 and, therefore, petitioner is not
qualified.

6. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsels for parties and have
perused the record with their assistance.

7. So far as the first submission, that,
the selection process should be treated to
have started in the month of June, 2021,
when the PET examination was conducted by
the Commission is concerned, I do not find
any force in the said submission. The PET
examination is a general examination. The
same is not held for any specific service
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under any service rules. The same is
conducted under the U.P. Subordinate
Services Selection Commission Act, 2014
(Commission Act). The same does not make
any person entitled for any post whatsoever,
but, is only a preliminary test taken for
permitting a person to apply for the Class-III
vacancies going to be advertised thereafter,
till the said PET examination result is in
force. Under different service rules the
Commission advertised and initiates the
selection process. It was open for the State
Government as well as for the Commission to
proceed or not to proceed for the selection of
the Revenue Lekhpal under their service
rules. In case of non advertisement of the said
vacancies petitioner had no vested rights. The
right vested in the petitioner after clearing
PET examination was only to submit
application and appear in the selection
process for the vacancies under different
rules, as advertised by the Commission.
Therefore, it cannot be said that any selection
process was initiated under the Lekhpal
Rules, 2006 merely by conducting PET
examination. Rule-14 of the Lekhpal Rules,
2006 provides that appointing authority shall
determine and intimate to the selection
committee the number of vacancies to be
filled up during course of the year of
recruitment. The selection committee stands
replaced by the Selection Commission as per
the Commission Act. Therefore, it is for the
selection
commission
to
advertise
the
vacancies as per relevant service rules. Thus,
the selection process for the post of Revenue
Lekhpal cannot be said to have started with
the PET examination but initiated when the
same were advertised on 05.01.2022 by the
Commission.

8. So far as the next submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner, that,
petitioner is required to be not more than of
40 years in age on 01.07.2021 and not on
01.07.2022, is concerned, the following
rules of U.P. Lekhpal Services Rules, 2006
(Lekhpal Rules, 2006) are relevant:-

"Rule 3(n) 'Year of recruitment'
means
a
period
of
twelve
months
commencing on the first day of July of a
calendar year.

...........

Rule 10. A candidate for direct
recruitment to a post in the service must have
attained the age of 18 years and must not
have attained the age of more than 40 yrs on
the first day of July of the calendar year in
which vacancies for direct recruitment are
advertised.

Provided that the upper age limit
in the case of candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and such
other categories as may be notified by the
Government from time to time shall be
greater by such number of years as may be
specified.

Rule 14. The appointing authority
shall determine and intimate to the Selection
Committee, the number of vacancies to be
filled during the course of the year of
recruitment as also the number of vacancies
to be reserved for candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other categories under rule 6.

For making direct recruitment, the
vacancies shall be notified in the following
manner

(i) by issuing advertisement in the
daily newspaper having wide circulation:

(ii) by pasting the notice on the
notice board of the office or by advertising
5 All. Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
977
through
Radio/Television
and
other
Employment newspapers, and

(iii) by notifying vacancies to the
Employment Exchange."

Further, Rule 6 of U.P. Recruitment to
Services (Age Limit) Rules, 1972 (Age
Limit Rules) reads:-

"Rule 6-Computation of Age.-
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any service rules, for the
services and posts, whether within or
outside the purview of the Public Service
Commission,
a
candidate must
have
attained the minimum age and must not
have attained the maximum age, as
prescribed from time to time, on the first
day of July of the calendar year in which
vacancies for direct recruitment are
advertised
by
the
Public
Service
Commission or
any
other
recruiting
authority, or as the case may be, such
vacancies are intimated to the Employment
Exchange.

Provided that nothing in this rule
shall apply to a case where such
advertisement or intimation has been made
before the commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age
Limit) (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1984."

9. A bare perusal of Rule-10 of the
Lekhpal Service Rules and Rule 6 Age
Limit Rules, clearly provide that a
candidate must not have attained more than
40 years of age as on first day of July in
calendar year in which the vacancies are
advertised.
In
the
present
case
the
vacancies are advertised on 05.01.2022.
The person must not have attained the age
of more than 40 years as on first of July of
the year 2022. Admittedly, petitioner is
more than 40 years as on 01.07.2022. Due
to the non-obstinate clause in Rule 6 of the
Age Limit Rules, it is the Rule 6 which is
relevant for our purposes and not Rule-10
of the Lekhpal Rules, 2006 but the same is
also in same terms. Even otherwise, the
term 'calendar year and term 'year of
recruitment' are entirely different and the
term 'year of recruitment' is defined under
Rule 3(n) of the Lekhpal Rules, 2006,
which means 12 months commencing from
first day of July of a calendar year. From
the perusal of the same it is clear that the
'year of recruitment' and a 'calendar year'
even as per Rule 3(n) are distinct and
separate. The two cannot be interchanged.
Further year of recruitment is relevant for
Rule 14 and not for determination of age
under Rule-10 or Rule-6 of Age Limit
Rules. The term 'year' is also defined under
Section 4(50) of the U.P. General Clauses
Act 1904 which means a "year" shall
mean a year reckoned according to the
British calendar. There is no reason to
interpret the word 'calendar year' in any
other manner.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also placed before this Court a report of
the
Calendar
Reform
Committee
of
Government
of
India,
submitted
on
10.11.1955. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in the said report the
committee referred to number of calendars
in use in India and did not find favour with
the English calendar for use in India and
recommended use of Indian calendar.
Therefore, the term calendar year as used in
Rule-10 should not be read as British
calendar but should be treated to be Indian
Calendar. Learned counsel for petitioner
further relied upon the judgments of
Supreme Court passed in case of 'Malik
Mazar Sultan Vs. U.P. Public Service
Commission' reported in [2006 (9) SCC
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
507]
and
'Chairman
Indore
Vikas
Pradhikaran Vs. Pure Industrial Coke
and Chemicals Limited' reported in [2007
(8) SCC 705].

11. I have perused the report of the
committee. The said report is only
recommendatory
in
nature.
There
is
nothing to show that the same was ever
accepted and enforced, at any point of time.
There is nothing to show that while drafting
or enforcing the applicable rules, the State
Government ever relied upon the said
report or referred to any Indian calendar.
The use of the month of July in rules itself
shows that rules refer to the British
calendar and not to an Indian calendar.
Therefore, the term 'calendar year' in which
the vacancies are advertised is the year
from the 1st of January to 31st December
and, it is the first day of July of the said
calendar year on which the person should
not have attained the age of more than 40
years. The same in the present case is 2022
as the vacancies were advertised on
05.01.2022.

12. So far as the judgments relied
upon the learned counsel for petitioner are
concerned, I have perused both the
judgments. The same are not applicable to
the facts of the present case, as they are on
entirely different facts.

13. No other submissions were made
by learned counsel for petitioner.

14. Thus, there is no force in the
submissions
of
learned
counsel
for
petitioner.

15. The writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A978
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED LUCKNOW 04.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

WRIT A No. 6640 of 2021

Rawan Awasthi ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant
Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Sri Shailendra
Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ajay Kumar

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
U.P.
Recruitment
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness (Fifth Amendment),
Rules 1999 - The petitioner completed her
intermediate from C.B.S.E. Board prior to
02.05.2019 as the marksheet for the said
examination issued by C.B.S.E. bears the said
date and she applied for compassionate
appointment thereafter on 30.09.2019. In fact,
the petitioner on the date of death of her
mother was less than sixteen years of age,
therefore, she could not possibly apply for
compassionate appointment. Para 3(8) of the
G.O. dated 04.09.2000, itself permits
submission of such applications within
five years from the date of death of the
deceased employee. One of the objects of
such provision is to enable a dependent
who is otherwise minor, may be slightly
below the age of majority, so that he or
she
may
not
be
deprived
of
such
compassionate appointment and may not
have
to
undergo
the
consequential
financial
deprivation.
Therefore,
the
provision in para 3(5) does not appear to
be reasonable by any standards. (Para 8)

The provision contained in para no. 3(5) of
the aforesaid GO is patently unreasonable
and hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution of