HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 31077 of 2015 Connected with WRIT - A No. - 21015 of 2024 ______________________________________________________________________________ AND WRIT - A No. - 10882 of 2025 Court No. - 34 (SN.7) Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Goyal, Nikhil Mishra, Siddharth Singhal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Nisheeth Yadav Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Pande (Senior Adv.), Vishakha Pande, Yashaswin Venugopal Bajpai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avneesh Tripathi, Amit Shukla, C.S.C., M.N. Singh Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nikhil Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Gyan Lata Pal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Gyan Lata Pal And 7 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 21 Others .....Respondent(s) Gyan Lata Pal .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Tanishk Goyal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nikhil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ A No. 31077 of 2015 as well as in Writ A No. 10882 of 2025 and Ms. Vishakha Pande in Writ A No. 21015 of 2024 and Sri Dilip Kumar Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State as well as Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission. 2. All the three petitions are filed by the petitioner and relates to the same controversy with regard to the physical standards later prescribed after the advertisement and selection of the petitioner for the post of Deputy Jailor, which was opted by the petitioner and pursuant to the interim order dated 26.05.2015, she was given appointment vide appointment letter dated 08.07.2015 provisionally and consequent thereto she had joined on 20.07.2015 on the post of Deputy Jailor and subsequent petitions are filed by the petitioner raising the grievance with regard to her seniority as well as non-grant of the promotional benefits to the petitioner. The reliefs in the other two petitions would be dependent upon the reliefs granted in the leading writ petition being Writ A No. 31077 of 2015. In such view of the matter, all the three petitions which are connected, have been heard together and are being decided together by this common order. 3. In the aforesaid leading petition, on 26.05.2015, this Court passed the following order: "Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing counsel appears for respondents no. 1 and 2. Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appears for respondent no. 3. An advertisement was issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission on 9th August 2008 inter alia inviting applications for appointment on the post of Deputy Jailer. Apart from the other eligibility conditions, the advertisement provided that the posts for which physical fitness of the candidates is required to be examined like the post of Jailer, it WRIA No. 31077 of 2015 2 shall be adjudged as per the concerned service Rules. The petitioner qualified the written examination and interview but after the physical test she has been ousted on the ground that she does not fulfill the minimum physical criteria of height and weight as prescribed by the Rules. The submission of Sri Goyal is that at the time of issuance of advertisement Rule 13(2) of the relevant U.P. Prisoner Administration and Reforms Executive Sub-ordinate (Non- Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980 provided for physical criteria for male candidates only. The said Rules were completely silent with regard to any physical criteria in relation to female candidates. The said Rules were amended in June 2014 and physical criteria for female candidates was also introduced therein but that would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. The eligibility of the petitioner has to be seen on the date of the advertisement. The amended Rules are only prospective in nature and can not be applied to the selection process which had commenced earlier. Learned Standing counsel as well as the counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission are directed to file counter affidavit within a month. Two weeks thereafter are allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit. List for admission/final disposal after six weeks. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 27th February 2015 passed by the Additional Director General (Administration)Jail Administration Evan Reforms Services, Uttar Pradesh shall remain stayed and respondents no. 1and 2 are at liberty to consider the petitioner for appointment and not to ignore her candidature on the ground of physical fitness as per the amended Rules. The appointment of the petitioner, if any, would be provisional and subject to decision of this WRIA No. 31077 of 2015 3 Court." 4. The briefly stated facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 09.08.2008, being Combined Lower Subordinate Services Special Selection Examination as well as Combined Lower Subordinate Services General Selection Examination, 2008. The petitioner herein had applied and qualified the preliminary examination, mains examination as well as the interview and she was declared qualified and selected. However, at the time of appointment the options were asked from the petitioner with regard to various posts available to be filled up from the selected candidates. The petitioner has given two options on 12.12.2013, one for the post of Legal Assistant (Housing and Urban Planning Department) and another for Deputy Jailor (Jail Administration and Reform Services). Accordingly, an offer of appointment was given to the petitioner for the post of Deputy Jailor as OBC female candidate in the Jail Administration and Reforms Services Department as after considering the options given by the petitioner. 5. It is relevant to take note of the fact that U.P. Prison Administration and Reforms Executive Subordinate (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980 at the time of advertisement as well as at the time of the filling up of the options by the petitioner did not prescribe any physical standards for the female candidates for the post of Deputy Jailor. 6. From the perusal of the Rule 13(2) of Rules, 1980, which was existing at the time of the options filled by the petitioner, prescribes only the physical standards for the male candidates. Later, the said rules were amended on 27.06.2014, which prescribed the physical standards for the female candidates as well i.e. Height 152 CM and Weight 45 to 58 KG. Thereafter, on 08.08.2014, the Headquarter of the Prison Administration and Reform Services asked a report from CMO, Allahabad with regard to the physical standards of the petitioner, wherein it was reported by the CMO concerned that petitioner's height is 150 cm and weight is 70 kg. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid report of the CMO, the petitioner was denied appointment to the post of Deputy Jailor. Being aggrieved the instant lead writ petition was filed by the petitioner and this Court while WRIA No. 31077 of 2015 4 taking a prima facie view that since the unamended rules of 1980 did not provide any physical standards for the female candidates and the amended rules as amended on 27.06.2014 did not prescribes that the said amendment will apply retrospectively, has passed an interim order on 26.05.2015, to grant the appointment to the petitioner provisionally to the post of Deputy Jailor. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner is working as Deputy Jailor, however, during the pendency of the instant petition since the petitioner has not been given the seniority or the promotions as per rules, she has filed two other writ petitions claiming seniority as well as the promotion as per rules. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, since the physical standards later prescribed for the female candidates after amendment in the rules, which do not apply retrospectively cannot be made applicable in case of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents could not have denied the regular appointment to the petitioner from its inception and thus her appointment should be treated as a regular appointment from the date of her joining i.e., 20.07.2015 and all consequential benefits be granted to the petitioner in accordance with rules. 9. Per contra Sri Dileep Kumar Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State admits that the physical standards were not prescribed in the original rules and the standards, which were provided in unamended Rule 13(2) were applicable only to the male candidates, which cannot be applied in the case of the female candidates. To fill up the gap, later vide amendment in the year 2014 the physical standards has been prescribed for the female candidates as well and by the time the petitioner was selected, those rules came into existence, therefore, the physical standards in accordance with the amended rules were asked for by the respondents. However, he is not in a position to dispute that the aforesaid amended rule could not be applied in the instant case, which came into effect from 27.06.2014, which is provided in the amended Rules itself. 10. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. It WRIA No. 31077 of 2015 5 is undisputed in the instant case that the aforesaid 1980 Rules do not provide for any physical standards for the female candidates for the post of Deputy Jailor, by way of amendment in the rules on 27.06.2014, which came into effect from 27.06.2014. The physical standards for female candidates was also prescribed though the petitioner did not fit in the said physical standard criteria prescribed by the amended rules. However, since the said amendment rule cannot be applied in the case of an advertisement, which was issued in the year, 2008, which did not prescribe any physical standards for the female candidates and the amended rules cannot be applied retrospectively in view of the categorical provision in the amending Act itself that the said rule will apply only from date of notification i.e., 27.06.2014. In such view of the matter, the respondents cannot insist for the physical standard criteria in case of the petitioner, which was brought after the amendment. 11. In such view of the matter, the instant petitions are allowed. The appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 08.07.2015 and 09.07.2015 shall be treated as a regular appointment from the date of her joining i.e., 20.07.2015, and all consequential benefits shall be granted to the petitioner treating the petitioner as a regularly appointed from 20.07.2015. All consequential orders and benefits shall be accorded to the petitioner in terms of this order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 17, 2026 Shubham Arya WRIA No. 31077 of 2015 6 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad