HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 405 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. C. M. Application No. 1 of 2025 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Heard Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent no.3. 3. The cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient. The application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Order on Special Appeal 4. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. 5. This is an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 11.08.2025 passed in Writ A No.8383 of 2025. 6. We have perused our earlier order dated 16.10.2025 where prima Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Ankit Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Gaurav Mehrotra, C.S.C., Utsav Mishra Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra .....Appellant(s) Secretary / Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) facie observations were made. Having heard the matter finally today, we are of the considered opinion that so far as the opinion given by the learned Single Judge that in the event of discrepancy between the Hindi version and English version of the U.P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, it is the English version which will apply, does not suffer from any error. In this regard, we may also, in addition to the decisions cited by the learned Single Judge, refer to the decision reported in (1996) 3 SCC 576; Nityanand Sharma and anr. vs. State of Bihar and ors. Therefore, we do not find any error in finding/ opinion of the learned Single Judge. It being so, what we find is that out of the ten candidates who were called for interview initially against two unreserved posts of Instructor Cutting Swing, all of them had more marks based on the criteria prescribed in Rule 16(3)(a) of the U.P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014. 7. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, 20 candidates were called for interview. The last candidate had secured 55.65 marks, whereas the appellant/ petitioner before us had secured 53.68 marks. Therefore, apparently no prejudice has been caused to the appellant/ petitioner. Assuming that the shortlisting was not to be done as per the guidelines framed by the Commission referable to Section 15(1)(a) of the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 2014 in view of Rule 16(3)(b)(i) of the U.P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, as, ultimately under the latter provision, the number of candidates to be called for interview, where the applications received are large in number, were to be four times of the vacancies, whereas in this case SPLAD No. 405 of 2025 2 the unreserved vacancies on the post of Instructor Cutting Swing were only two and if Rule 16(3)(b)(i) of the U.P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 was applied, only eight candidates would have been called, whereas 20 candidates were called by the Commission, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant/ petitioner in this case. How many candidates were called for the other vacancy of the same post including those requiring the qualification of degree or diploma holders is not relevant to the grievance of the appellant herein as he does not fall in that category but in the category of persons having NTC holders. 8. At this stage Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant states that as per Rule 16(3)(b)(i) of the U.P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, only four candidates against one post could have been called, therefore, the number of candidates called by the Commission was more than as prescribed in the U.P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, as such selection was vitiated. We are not persuaded by this argument in the facts of this case because even when more candidates were called, the appellant/ petitioner was not eligible for being called in view of the provision of shortlisting being relied by the appellant. Further, interviews have already been held and appointments been made. The entire argument of the appellant was based on the Hindi version of the U.P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, whereas the law is that it is the English version which will prevail, as has already been held by learned Single Judge. SPLAD No. 405 of 2025 3 9. We do not find any merit in this appeal. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in the facts of this case. November 25, 2025 Arnima SPLAD No. 405 of 2025 4 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench