Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4577 (ALL)

Geeta Chandra v. State of U. P.

2026-03-24

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

body2026
JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Kunal Shah and Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Sri Saksham Srivastava, Sri Vipul Pandey, Sri Neelabh Srivastava, Kritika Sinha, Sri Sunil Kumar Shukla, Sri Rahul Mishra, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Sri Hashim Khan, Sri Tarun Agarwal Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prashant Mishra and Sri Anoop Baranwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjeev Singh, Learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Avneesh Tripathi and Sri Sanjay Kumar Om on behalf of respondent Commission. 2. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an Advertisement No.A-5/E-1/2024 dated 28.8.2024 for Uttar Pradesh University (Centralised) Service Assistant Registrar Examination-2024. 3. Petitioners in present bunch of writ petitions have applied in said Examination and are aggrieved that despite they have an experience of 7 years as required, still their respective candidature was rejected and respective appeals thereof were also rejected. 4. Applicable service Rules in present case is the Uttar Pradesh Sate University (Centralised) Service rules, 1975. Rule 13, of aforesaid Rules provides qualification for a post under Centralised Service, which is reproduced hereinafter: “13. Qualifications - A candidate to any post under the Centralised Services must possess the requisite qualification as the Commission may prescribe with the approval of the State Government.” 5. Qualification for concerned post was notified through a Government 6. In the above referred background, following essential qualifications were prescribed after approval of State Government with certain modifications: 7. Petitioners before this Court have claimed that they have working experience of 7 years either in a Government Office or in an Office of University, whereas respondents have come up with a case that they are bound by a clarification issued by the State subsequently on 8. Now the Court proceeds to consider case of each petitioners: (a) Writ No. 1732 of 2026. In the present case, petitioner is working as ‘Cabin Crew’ in Indian Air Lines Ltd. and later on she was promoted as ‘Senior Associate’ in the Finance Department at same place having an experience of more than 17 years. Now the Court proceeds to consider case of each petitioners: (a) Writ No. 1732 of 2026. In the present case, petitioner is working as ‘Cabin Crew’ in Indian Air Lines Ltd. and later on she was promoted as ‘Senior Associate’ in the Finance Department at same place having an experience of more than 17 years. It may be a case of petitioner that Indian Air Lines Ltd., is a State instrumentality or a Public Sector Undertaking and her service is governed by Rules and Regulations duly approved by the Central Government, but still in strict interpretation, it is not a Government Office under ‘State or Union’. The employer is at liberty to give a restricted interpretation of word ‘Government Office’ as per the need of the post. The Court in writ Jurisdiction cannot force the State to expand the scope of words ‘Government Office’. An employee would be treated to be an employee of Government Office only if his employment is under direct control of State or Union Government, therefore, her claim was rightly rejected. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (b) Writ No.1665 of 2026 In the present case, petitioner is working in Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, a Government Company. In this case also, a view taken by this Court in above mentioned Writ Petition No.1732 of 2026 is squarely applicable, therefore, his claim was rightly rejected. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (c) Writ Nos.1764 of 2026 and 2201 of 2026 The above both writ petitions are filed by one petitioner, who is working in Airports Authority of India and as submitted by learned counsel for respondents that his claim will be reconsidered as Airports Authority of India is an Office of Central Government, therefore, impugned order dated 14.1.2026 is set aside and matter is remanded to pass a fresh order in the appeal. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. (d) Writ No.2168 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., a Government undertaking, therefore, reasons assigned to dismiss in Writ-C No.1732 of 2026, are squarely applicable in present case, therefore, no interference is required in impugned order, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (e) Writ No.2225 of 2026 In present case, petitioner has worked from 2014 to 2019 in Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur and subsequently worked in Government Girls Inter College, Prayagraj. (e) Writ No.2225 of 2026 In present case, petitioner has worked from 2014 to 2019 in Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur and subsequently worked in Government Girls Inter College, Prayagraj. Undisputedly, the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur is a Government of India enterprises, however, it would not fall within any Government Office as observed in above referred writ petitions, therefore, his claim was rightly rejected. No interference is required in the impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (f) Writ No.2231 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, a Government undertaking, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No.2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (g) Writ No.2232 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, a Government undertaking, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (h) Writ No. 2237 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., a State Government undertaking, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (i) Writ No.2289 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working on contractual basis as EMIS Incharge at Office of District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya. It is not disputed that a person working on contract cannot be considered to be a regular employee in a government office, therefore, no interference is required in impugned order, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (j) Writ No.2427 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., a State Government undertaking, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (k) Writ No.3452 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Moradabad, a private University. The required essential qualification is 7 years of experience in the office of a University. (k) Writ No.3452 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Teerthankar Mahaveer University, Moradabad, a private University. The required essential qualification is 7 years of experience in the office of a University. No explanation is provided whether University is a Central, State, Private or Constituted under an Act, therefore, impugned order dated 13.2.2026 is set-aside and matter is remanded back to pass a fresh order in the Appeal after getting a clarification from the State. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (l) Writ No.2499 of 2026 This writ petition is filed by five petitioners. Petitioner-1 and 3 are working in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, petitioner-2 is working in Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd., a government undertaking, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner-4 (Trilokinath Yadav) has not filed any proof in support of his service experience, therefore, no relief can be granted. Petition is accordingly dismissed. So far as petitioner-5 (Saurabh Tiwari) is concerned, he is working under Food Corporation of India which was set up under the Food Corporation Act, 1964, an independent entity, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (m) Writ No.2516 of 2026 This writ petition is filed by 7 persons. Petitioner – 1 is working at Ordinance Factory, Jabalpur, however, petitioner- 2 to 6 are working in Ordinance Factory, Kanpur, an independent government entity, therefore, their services would also not fall under in any government office, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. So far as petitioner-7, i.e. Dilip Kumay Yadav is concerned, he is working in Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, Pune which is a deemed university. Court finds that his case requires to be reconsidered in view of observations made in Writ Petition No. 3452 of 2026, therefore, impugned order dated 2.2.2026 is set aside and matter is remanded back to pass a fresh order on Appeal. Writ Petition is disposed of qua to petitioner no.7. Court finds that his case requires to be reconsidered in view of observations made in Writ Petition No. 3452 of 2026, therefore, impugned order dated 2.2.2026 is set aside and matter is remanded back to pass a fresh order on Appeal. Writ Petition is disposed of qua to petitioner no.7. (n) Writ No.3112 of 2026 In the present case, petitioner is working as Middle Teacher in Datiya and as held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Writ-A No.1755 of 2026, (Mayank Vs. State of U.P.) 2026:AHC-LKO:13223, placing reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Sriram Warade & Ors, (2019) 6 SCC 362 , his experience also cannot be considered for the post of Assistant Registrar, therefore, no case for interference is made out, hence, writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (o) Writ No.2996 of 2026 In present case, petitioner is working in Composite School, Senior Primary School under Basic Shiksha Adhikari, therefore, for the reasons assigned in Writ No. 3112 of 2026, no interference is required in impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (p) Writ No.2768 of 2026 In present case, petitioner has subsequently served under Employees State Insurance Corporation, a Corporate Body, therefore, reasons assigned in Writ C No. 1665 of 2026 and Writ C No. 2168 of 2026 would be applicable in present case also, therefore, no interference is required in impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (q) Writ No.3267 of 2026 In the present case, petitioner is working in Security Paper Mill, Narmadapuram, Madhya Pradesh, an undertaking of Govt. of India, therefore, for the reasons assigned in the order passed in Writ-C No.1665 of 2026 and Writ-C No. 2168 of 2026, no case for interference is required in impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (r) Writ No.3473 of 2026 This writ petition is filed by five petitioners. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are working as Teachers in Inter College and petitioner no.3 is working as Assistant Teacher in Basic Education Department and as observed in the order passed in Writ-C No.3112 of 2026, referred above, their services cannot be considered of a Government Office, therefore, no interference is required in impugned order. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are working as Teachers in Inter College and petitioner no.3 is working as Assistant Teacher in Basic Education Department and as observed in the order passed in Writ-C No.3112 of 2026, referred above, their services cannot be considered of a Government Office, therefore, no interference is required in impugned order. The petitioner nos.4 and 5 are concerned, they are working in Bank of Baroda and Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, which are independent entities and their services cannot be considered of a Government Office. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in above referred Writ Petition No.1732 of 2026, no interference is warranted in impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (s) Writ No.2486 of 2026 This writ petition is filed by five petitioners. Service of petitioner no.1 is in a Corporate Bank and therefore, for the reasons assigned in the order passed in above referred Writ Petition No.3473 of 2026, no interference is required. So far as petitioner nos.2 to 5 are concerned, experience of their working as Primary Teachers, therefore, for the reasons assigned in the order passed in above referred Writ Petition No.3112 of 2026, no interference is required. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for different petitioners are distinguishable on facts. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (t) Writ No.2686 of 2026 In this case petitioner has claimed that 3 candidates were wrongly considered to be qualified having 7 years experience in any Government Office. However, Court finds that claim of the petitioners is liable to be rejected since presently Nayan Kumar, is working as Head Assistant in the Directorate of Education (Secondary) U.P. Prayagraj, undisputedly a Government Office and Sri Surendra Kumar Singh is working as Personal Assistant in Directorate of Education (Secondary) U.P. Prayagraj, also a Government Office, therefore, any objection to their inclusion for interview is baseless. So far as details of 3 rd person is concerned, according to learned counsel for the respondents, details are not matched in their data, therefore, objections are liable to be rejected. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.