High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The controversy involved in this case centres around the academic qualification whether the petitioners possess to be promoted on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). It has been argued by Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate that petitioner possessed required qualification of diploma in civil engineering as prescribed under Rule 8(A) of the U.P. Irrigation Department Civil Engineers (Subordinate) Service Rules, 1992 and hence they were rightly promoted pursuant to the Government Order issued in that behalf on 23.03.2017, treating their diploma of civil engineering obtained from JRN Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Udaipur, Rajasthan as valid being of the year 2012-13. A series of litigations has preceeded qua validity of this academic qualification. Upon being remanded the State Government has finally held that petitioners did not possess with the requisite qualification vide order impugned dated 27.06.2025. This finding has been arrived at by relying upon a report of a five member committee constituted in that behalf and report of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department obtained on 25.06.2025.

3. The basic pleas taken for challenging the order by the petitioners before the Court is that petitioners had not been afforded any opportunity by State Government to represent their matter before it as they were not given any notice while State Government was seized with the matter under the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 786/2024 dated 09.05.2025 and hence their defence and the pleas against the recommendations of the five members committee remained unaddressed. The order, therefore, is claimed to be in violation of principles of natural justice for want of reasonable opportunity of hearing.

4. Petitioners claim to had an opportunity to approach the Chief Engineer as 2 WRIA No. 10927 of 2025 the contesting respondents came to challenge the Government Order dated 23.03.2017 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 20117 of 2020 which got disposed of on 26.05.2025. Petitioner had supported the matter with reasonings in their representation and yet their representations 04.06.2025 with details qua their claims as well as the reference given therein of the order of the Supreme Court dated 22.01.2018 reviewing its earlier order dated 03.11.2017, remained unaddressed in the report submitted by the Chief Engineer on 25.06.2025 to the State Government. It is contended that soon two days thereafter the State Government passed order placing reliance upon the report submitted by both the chief engineer and also the five member committee recommendation. Thus again a plea of no reasonable opportunity of hearing inasmuch as plea of non consideration of relevant material has been taken to question the order impugned for want of compliance of principles of natural justice. 5 It is contended that once the Supreme Court had clarified its order dated 03.11.2017 vide order dated 22.01.2018 that in the earlier judgment validity of courses run by the JRN Deemed University, Udaipur, Rajasthan distance mode of learning to be not compatible to the courses recognized by the UGC, was relating to degrees only and the judgment was confined to the degrees and not the diplomas as that was not in issue, and yet the State Government failed to consider this aspect of the matter. It is contended that in petitioner's representation to the Chief Engineer, Supreme Court's clarificatory order was reproduced.

6. It is argued that the State Government though has referred to the letter of the UGC dated 06.01.2017 which mentions "the programme wise recognition was accorded to it for one year, the instant recognition was accorded to it for academic year 2007-2008, 2011-12. Programme wise recognition was accorded to it for one year 2012-13. No further recognition has been granted to it either by DEC or UGC to offer any programme through distance mode. The information is already displayed on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in/deb.," and this aspect was also very specifically considered in its government order dated 23.03.2017 by quoting the UGC letter dated 06.01.2017 and yet State Government failed to record cogent reasons for turning around this time to hold that diplomas obtained for the year 2012-13 or prior to it were not valid ones to be considered as academic qualification within the meaning of Rule 8 of Service Rules. Thus order of State Government is claimed to be bad for this reason as well.

7. Countering the submissions, Mr. Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants seeking impleadment in the matter submits that 3 WRIA No. 10927 of 2025 in the principal judgment dated 03.11.2017 Supreme Court had discussed that distance learning programme issue and had very categorically observed that such mode of learning in technical education was not to be allowed and hence this ratio of the judgment should be seen as binding and qualification should be considered in the light of the said ratio. According to him, the Court has not diluted the ratio of the judgment by clarifying it on 22.01.2018. Hence, according to Mr. Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel applying the ratio of the said judgment the academic qualification diploma in civil engineering through distance mode of learning from university concerned was rightly held not a valid one for the purposes of Rule 8 of the Rules.

8. Shri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing counsel could not dispute that state government failed to consider clarificatory order of of Supreme Court. He also could not demonstrate from any of the recitals contained in the order that petitioners' pleas taken in their representation made to chief engineer were accorded any consideration. He also could not show any cogent reason for State Government to have arrived at such a conclusion which could justify its stand contrary to the stand taken in the UGC's letter dated 06.01.2017.

9. Fairness in administrative action calls for not only application of mind but due application of mind to material component leading to adjudicatory aspect of an issue more specially when it is at the end of a government itself, which may not be bound to give personal hearing to an aggrieved person. An administrative decision while is being reviewed by the administrative authority itself, it should be based on sound logic and established principles that earlier it was mislead for any fraud or misrepresentation. Had the State Government given thoughtful consideration to the material and had proper material been placed, it would have perhaps affirmed its earlier decision. In such circumstances, therefore when Court finds that decision taken by ad ministrative authority is not well informed one, intervention by way of judicial review becomes a must. I may quote what Mullan, a celebrated Judge writes in his famous treatise "Natural Justice and Fairness: writes: "......... This did not go far enough; the old law relating to natural justice was too rigidly entrenched. More importantly, the issues were now somewhat more sophisticated, and it was recognized that it was not a case of all or nothing. Some decision making functions, while not requiring full adjudicative hearings, might nevertheless have usefully had certain participatory obligations or perhaps simply an obligation of "proper" consideration attached to them. Out of this predicament emerged the new vocabulary of the duty to act fairly. This was not in any sense the result of a growing feeling on the part of the courts that the time had come to assert a general review power over the wisdom of administrative decision-making, even though the subsequent conduct of one of the principal proponents of procedural "fairness" review, Lord Denning M.R., might suggest that 4 WRIA No. 10927 of 2025 this was indeed the case. It can best be viewed as a reaction to a particular problem in a particular area of judicial review. Hence it is ironic, though not perhaps surprising, to now see the emergence of fairness in the substantive law of judicial review as a standard for judging the merits of administrative decision-making...... . (1982) 27 McGill L.J. 273.

10. In view of the above discussion, in my considered view State Government should revisit the issues and this time after giving its thoughtful consideration to the letter of the U.G.C. and pleas also taken by petitioners in their respective representations including earlier given to the chief engineer. Petitioners are directed to submit their representations annexing herewith a copy of that representation already made to the chief engineer previously this time to the concerned secretary of the State Government along with certified copy of this order within six week from today. The contesting parties represented by Mr. Indra Raj Singh learned Advocate may do the same. The State Government shall be taking decision afresh within a period of two months of production of certified copy of this order as discussed above. The impugned order dated 27.06.2025, in the circumstances, is hereby quashed.

11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Order on Impleadment Application No. 05 of 2025 Impleadment application stands disposed of in terms of Chapter 22 Rules V of the Rules of the Court, 1952. Order Date :- 19.8.2025/Sharad/- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The controversy involved in this case centres around the academic qualification whether the petitioners possess to be promoted on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). It has been argued by Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate that petitioner possessed required qualification of diploma in civil engineering as prescribed under Rule 8(A) of the U.P. Irrigation Department Civil Engineers (Subordinate) Service Rules, 1992 and hence they were rightly promoted pursuant to the Government Order issued in that behalf on 23.03.2017, treating their diploma of civil engineering obtained from JRN Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Udaipur, Rajasthan as valid being of the year 2012-13. A series of litigations has preceeded qua validity of this academic qualification. Upon being remanded the State Government has finally held that petitioners did not possess with the requisite qualification vide order impugned dated 27.06.2025. This finding has been arrived at by relying upon a report of a five member committee constituted in that behalf and report of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department obtained on 25.06.2025.

3. The basic pleas taken for challenging the order by the petitioners before the Court is that petitioners had not been afforded any opportunity by State Government to represent their matter before it as they were not given any notice while State Government was seized with the matter under the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 786/2024 dated 09.05.2025 and hence their defence and the pleas against the recommendations of the five members committee remained unaddressed. The order, therefore, is claimed to be in violation of principles of natural justice for want of reasonable opportunity of hearing.

4. Petitioners claim to had an opportunity to approach the Chief Engineer as 2 WRIA No. 10927 of 2025 the contesting respondents came to challenge the Government Order dated 23.03.2017 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 20117 of 2020 which got disposed of on 26.05.2025. Petitioner had supported the matter with reasonings in their representation and yet their representations 04.06.2025 with details qua their claims as well as the reference given therein of the order of the Supreme Court dated 22.01.2018 reviewing its earlier order dated 03.11.2017, remained unaddressed in the report submitted by the Chief Engineer on 25.06.2025 to the State Government. It is contended that soon two days thereafter the State Government passed order placing reliance upon the report submitted by both the chief engineer and also the five member committee recommendation. Thus again a plea of no reasonable opportunity of hearing inasmuch as plea of non consideration of relevant material has been taken to question the order impugned for want of compliance of principles of natural justice. 5 It is contended that once the Supreme Court had clarified its order dated 03.11.2017 vide order dated 22.01.2018 that in the earlier judgment validity of courses run by the JRN Deemed University, Udaipur, Rajasthan distance mode of learning to be not compatible to the courses recognized by the UGC, was relating to degrees only and the judgment was confined to the degrees and not the diplomas as that was not in issue, and yet the State Government failed to consider this aspect of the matter. It is contended that in petitioner's representation to the Chief Engineer, Supreme Court's clarificatory order was reproduced.

6. It is argued that the State Government though has referred to the letter of the UGC dated 06.01.2017 which mentions "the programme wise recognition was accorded to it for one year, the instant recognition was accorded to it for academic year 2007-2008, 2011-12. Programme wise recognition was accorded to it for one year 2012-13. No further recognition has been granted to it either by DEC or UGC to offer any programme through distance mode. The information is already displayed on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in/deb.," and this aspect was also very specifically considered in its government order dated 23.03.2017 by quoting the UGC letter dated 06.01.2017 and yet State Government failed to record cogent reasons for turning around this time to hold that diplomas obtained for the year 2012-13 or prior to it were not valid ones to be considered as academic qualification within the meaning of Rule 8 of Service Rules. Thus order of State Government is claimed to be bad for this reason as well.

7. Countering the submissions, Mr. Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants seeking impleadment in the matter submits that 3 WRIA No. 10927 of 2025 in the principal judgment dated 03.11.2017 Supreme Court had discussed that distance learning programme issue and had very categorically observed that such mode of learning in technical education was not to be allowed and hence this ratio of the judgment should be seen as binding and qualification should be considered in the light of the said ratio. According to him, the Court has not diluted the ratio of the judgment by clarifying it on 22.01.2018. Hence, according to Mr. Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel applying the ratio of the said judgment the academic qualification diploma in civil engineering through distance mode of learning from university concerned was rightly held not a valid one for the purposes of Rule 8 of the Rules.

8. Shri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing counsel could not dispute that state government failed to consider clarificatory order of of Supreme Court. He also could not demonstrate from any of the recitals contained in the order that petitioners' pleas taken in their representation made to chief engineer were accorded any consideration. He also could not show any cogent reason for State Government to have arrived at such a conclusion which could justify its stand contrary to the stand taken in the UGC's letter dated 06.01.2017.

9. Fairness in administrative action calls for not only application of mind but due application of mind to material component leading to adjudicatory aspect of an issue more specially when it is at the end of a government itself, which may not be bound to give personal hearing to an aggrieved person. An administrative decision while is being reviewed by the administrative authority itself, it should be based on sound logic and established principles that earlier it was mislead for any fraud or misrepresentation. Had the State Government given thoughtful consideration to the material and had proper material been placed, it would have perhaps affirmed its earlier decision. In such circumstances, therefore when Court finds that decision taken by ad ministrative authority is not well informed one, intervention by way of judicial review becomes a must. I may quote what Mullan, a celebrated Judge writes in his famous treatise "Natural Justice and Fairness: writes: "......... This did not go far enough; the old law relating to natural justice was too rigidly entrenched. More importantly, the issues were now somewhat more sophisticated, and it was recognized that it was not a case of all or nothing. Some decision making functions, while not requiring full adjudicative hearings, might nevertheless have usefully had certain participatory obligations or perhaps simply an obligation of "proper" consideration attached to them. Out of this predicament emerged the new vocabulary of the duty to act fairly. This was not in any sense the result of a growing feeling on the part of the courts that the time had come to assert a general review power over the wisdom of administrative decision-making, even though the subsequent conduct of one of the principal proponents of procedural "fairness" review, Lord Denning M.R., might suggest that 4 WRIA No. 10927 of 2025 this was indeed the case. It can best be viewed as a reaction to a particular problem in a particular area of judicial review. Hence it is ironic, though not perhaps surprising, to now see the emergence of fairness in the substantive law of judicial review as a standard for judging the merits of administrative decision-making...... . (1982) 27 McGill L.J. 273.

10. In view of the above discussion, in my considered view State Government should revisit the issues and this time after giving its thoughtful consideration to the letter of the U.G.C. and pleas also taken by petitioners in their respective representations including earlier given to the chief engineer. Petitioners are directed to submit their representations annexing herewith a copy of that representation already made to the chief engineer previously this time to the concerned secretary of the State Government along with certified copy of this order within six week from today. The contesting parties represented by Mr. Indra Raj Singh learned Advocate may do the same. The State Government shall be taking decision afresh within a period of two months of production of certified copy of this order as discussed above. The impugned order dated 27.06.2025, in the circumstances, is hereby quashed.

11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Order on Impleadment Application No. 05 of 2025 Impleadment application stands disposed of in terms of Chapter 22 Rules V of the Rules of the Court, 1952. Order Date :- 19.8.2025/Sharad/- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad