Allahabad High Court
Rahul Kumar Yadav And 6 Others vs U.P. Higher Education Service … on 5 August, 2026
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT A No. 6866 of 2026
Rahul Kumar Yadav And 6 Others
... Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Thru. Secy. Lko. And 3 Others
...Respondents
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Anurag Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Abhinit Jaiswal, C.S.C.
Reserved: 22.07.2026
Pronounced: 05.08.2026
Court No.6
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
J U D G M E N T
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned advertisement of recruitment, the impugned list of shortlisted candidates dated 09.06.2026 on the basis of re-examination conducted on 18.04.2026 as well as the notice for conduct of interview of the candidates whose name appeared in the shortlisted candidates, mainly on the ground that the entire process of advertisement and the shortlisting violates the statutory scheme of reservation.
2. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no.1 issued Advertisement No.51 dated 09.07.2022 notifying the process of selection for filling up 917 vacancies of the post of Assistant Professor in different degree collages including women degree colleges receiving grant (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). It is argued that the advertisement in the manner it was issued violates the statutory provisions, rules, office memorandum and judgments of the Honble Supreme Court.
3. It is argued that the reservation applicable to the persons with disabilities flows by virtue of the Act enacted by the parliament known as The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (herein after referred to as the Act) which is made applicable to all the Central Government, State Government services and the PSUs. It is argued that in terms of the mandate of Section 33 of the Act (as amended), the reservation to the extent of not less than 4% has to be distributed equally to the extent of 1% amongst the person suffering from blindness or low vision, hearing impairment and locomotor disability or cerebral palsy and other disabilities specified in the Act.
4. It is further argued that in terms of the mandate of Section 32 of the Act, it is the obligation of the appropriate government to identify the posts that can be held by persons with different categories of disabilities for the purpose of providing the reservation prescribed under Section 33. It is argued that even the respondent/State has issued office memorandum for implementation of the scheme of the Act for providing reservation.
5. My attention is also drawn to Rule 11 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (herein after referred to as the Rules) framed under the Act prescribing the manner of computation of vacancies.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further draws my attention to the Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018 whereby the Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and Training consolidated the instructions for implementation of the scheme of reservation in terms of Section 34 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Rules. It is further argued that initially reservation prescribed was 3% but the same was extended to 4% by amending Act of 2018 whereby the reservation was increased to 4% and new categories of disabilities were included for extending the benefit of reservation.
7. It is further argued and pleaded that the State Government, vide its notification dated 30.07.2021 issued under Section 33 of the Act, notified the list of identified posts for persons with disabilities including for the Department of Higher Education and the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor has been declared identified for the blind and low vision both.
8. It is further argued that the Central Government has issued an Office Memorandum dated 18.04.2022 yet again consolidating the instructions for reservation scheme. It is argued that in violation of the said guidelines and the Act, respondent no.1 issued the advertisement, impugned in the present writ petition, proposing to fill up 917 vacancies for the post of Assistant Professor in different degree colleges including the women degree college. Out of the total 917 vacancies, 22 vacancies were reserved for persons with disabilities, 5 for ex-servicemen and 64 for women. The advertisement also prescribed in Schedule 1 subject-wise and college-wise horizontal reservation.
9. It is claimed that the petitioners who have approached this Court are visually impaired and aggrieved on the ground that the advertisement is in violation of Section 34 of the Act read with the Rules as well as Office Memorandum dated 18.04.2022.
10. To highlight the errors, it is argued that the respondents have not provided reservation separately for each category of disability to the extent of 1% each alongwith backlog vacancies as mentioned in the Act, the Rules and the Office Memorandums. It is argued that instead of providing separate category of reservation for each category of disability, consolidated vacancies of 22 posts have been reserved against horizontal reservation. It is argued that in the consolidated list of 22 vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities, no vacancies have been shown or mentioned for persons of disabilities in Schedule 2 to the advertisement, thus, the reservation of 22 vacancies is redundant and unimplementable.
11. In the written submission submitted by the petitioners, it is reiterated that no disability wise separate reservation was prescribed in the impugned advertisement which is in violation of the Act and the Rules as well as the Office Memorandum dated 18.04.2022. It is further argued that in terms of the examination held in April, 2026 merit list and cut off list has been issued, however, no separate merit and cut off list for persons with disabilities have been issued which is in complete violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481 [(In Re: Recruitment of PWD Candidates in Rajasthan Judicial Services) Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2024]. It is, thus, argued that the entire process initiated by issuance of the advertisement and culminating in the cut off list being issued, being in violation of the Act, the Rules, Office Memorandum and the judgment of Supreme Court is liable to be struck down.
12. Shri Abhinit Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, on the basis of instructions, extensively argued firstly that the writ petition is barred by delay, laches, acquiescence and participation. He further argues that the petitioners being wholly aware of the advertisement issued on 09.07.2022 participated in the examination without any challenge and have approached this Court after four years without explaining the delay and laches. It is argued that the petitioners, having participated and failed to qualify for the next step of the selection process, have turned around and questioned the very advertisement under which they willingly participated. Once the petitioners were aware of the vacancy position in the year 2022 itself, approaching this Court after four years should be read against the petitioners.
13. It is argued that respondent no.1 is a Commission which is a selection body which had issued the advertisement on the basis of the requisitions received from the competent department in respect of the vacancies communicated with the Commission. It is argued that the petitioners have not challenged the manner in which the vacancies were determined and sent to the Commission and in absence thereto, the writ petition is liable to fail. It is argued that once the petitioners have not challenged the initial requisition on the ground of the same being violative of the Provisions of the Act and the Rules, the consequent advertisement cannot be challenged, more so, when the petitioners have failed to qualify for the next step.
14. It is argued that the reservation to be granted to the persons with disabilities has been given effect to in the present selection and the candidates belonging to the said category have been qualified and shortlisted in the process which is going on. It is argued that the persons with disabilities are entitled to reservation across the respective vertical category and cannot be confused as a vertical reservation as is being pleaded by the petitioners. It is argued that non-publication of the separate PwD cut off at an intermediate stage cannot lead to conclusion that the candidates of PwD category would not be extended the benefit of reservation as the selection process is still going on.
15. Reliance is also placed upon Rule 30(9) of U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Rules which provides that to maintain fairness and sanctity of the selection, the marks of the candidates shall not be disclosed before the final result of the selection process and thus, the petitioners have approached this Court even when the results have not been declared and the final selections have not been made. Thus, the writ petition, according to the respondent, is liable to be dismissed.
16. In that respect, reliance is placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.; (2023) 17 SCC 147 with emphasis on Paras 38 & 39, which read as under:
38. The next aspect of the matter which requires consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the advertisement notice dated 5-5-2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12-6-2009, without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention, regard may be had to the following case law:
38.1. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256] , this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently.
38.2. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 129] , an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment for the post of Physiotherapist. Candidates who failed to clear the written test presented a writ petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and the process of selection. They pleaded that the advertisement and the test were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998. After referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, this Court did not entertain the challenge for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participation in the selection process. The pertinent observations of this Court are as under : (SCC p. 320, para 24)
24. In view of the propositions laid down in the abovenoted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge [Anil Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand, 2012 SCC OnLine Utt 521] and the Division Bench [Ravi Shankar Joshi v. Anil Joshi, 2012 SCC OnLine Utt 766] of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.
38.3. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar [Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 822] , a process was initiated for promotion to Class III posts from amongst Class IV employees of a civil court. In the said case, the selection was to be made on the basis of a written test and interview, for which 85% and 15% marks were earmarked respectively as per norms. Out of 27 (twenty-seven) candidates who appeared in the written examination, 14 (fourteen) qualified. They were interviewed. The committee selected candidates on the basis of merit and prepared a list. The High Court declined [Anurag Verma v. State of Bihar, 2011 SCC OnLine Pat 1289] to approve the select list on the ground that the ratio of full marks for the written examination and the interview ought to have been 90 : 10 and 45 ought to be the qualifying marks in the written examination. A fresh process followed comprising of a written examination (full marks 90 and qualifying marks 45) and an interview (carrying 10 marks). On the basis of the performance of the candidates, results were declared and 6 (six) persons were appointed on Class III posts. It was thereafter that the appellants along with 4 (four) other unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the High Court on the administrative side declining to approve the initial select list. The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was required to carry 85 marks and the interview 15 marks. This Court dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the appellants were clearly put on notice when the fresh selection process took place that the written examination would carry 90 marks and the interview 10 marks. The Court was of the view that the appellants having participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process at their instance was precluded. The relevant observations are as under : (SCC p. 363, para 13)
13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] , this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] , this Court held that : (SCC p. 107, para 18)
18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same (see also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1052] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission [Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 345] )
39. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.
as well as the judgment in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. v. T.T. Murli Babu; (2014) 4 SCC 108 with emphasis on Paras 16 & 17 which read as under:
16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, procrastination is the greatest thief of time and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.
17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons who compete with Kumbhakarna or for that matter Rip Van Winkle. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Anr; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2109 with emphasis on Para 16 which reads as under:
16. As well settled, the candidates who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the respondents for making selection, on their having been declared as unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examinations. The appellants after they having found that their names do not appear in the list of successful candidates of Preliminary Examination, could not have questioned the result on the ground that the respondents had not declared the cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities. As stated earlier, the respondents have declared the cut off marks for the persons falling under Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation and not for the Overall Horizontal Reservation under which the appellants fall. Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
18. It is, thus, argued that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioners who could not find place in the shortlisted candidates is liable to be rejected on both the grounds of locus as well as laches.
19. In response to the said argument that the petitioners, having failed to find their name in the shortlisted candidates, cannot approach this Court after substantial delay and the petition is liable to be rejected, Shri Santosh Kumar Rongta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar and Ors.; (2019) 20 SCC 17, in particular Para 17, which is as under:
17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.
20. In the light of the said it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case the challenge is to the advertisement and the cut off list on the same being per se illegal and in contravention of the provision of the Act as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court and thus, the petitioners cannot be denied to challenge the entire process merely on the ground that the petitioners had participated in the process and having failed to make to the cut off list are approaching this Court.
21. In the light of the arguments, the argument that the petitioners have approached this Court with laches and having failed after participation in the process, is to be considered by this Court.
22. It is no doubt true that the advertisement was issued some time in the year 2022 and an examination was conducted, however, as there were anomalies in the conduct of the examination, the re-examination was conducted some time in the year 2026, thus, what emerges is that the petitioners had appeared on both the occasions in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 2022 and their name did not surface in the cut off list.
23. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai (supra) as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners, although, the petitioners may be well within their rights to challenge the process as being violative of the Act and the judgments, it cannot be ignored that the petitioners have approached this Court after substantial delay and laches and at the stage where the entire process is likely to be completed, without there being any explanation whatsoever in the pleadings to that effect.
Even if it is held that the petitioners had the right to challenge the process even having participated in the same as held in the case of Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai (supra), the laches at the instance of the petitioners are unexplained, more so, when the entire process is at the fag end. Thus, the contention of counsel for the petitioners that they can approach at leisure cannot be accepted and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. The petitioners were well aware of the alleged lacuna in the issuance of the advertisement since the year 2022 and having participated twice in the process have approached this Court after about four years when the entire process is on the verge of being concluded.
24. As regards the illegalities highlighted by Shri Rongta based upon statutory provisions as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court, the said contention would be available to the persons of PwD category after the process of selection is over and on the basis of their pleadings to the effect that there was violation of statutory scheme which has resulted in any arbitrary discrimination against them. In the present case, at the instance of the petitioners, no instance could be highlighted except the errors in the process of advertisement being in violation of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court, to the effect that any right of the petitioners have been adversely affected on account of the said discrepancies and thus, the foundation for issuance of a writ at the instance of the petitioners is absent.
25. There being no allegation that the acts of the respondents have resulted in any arbitrary discrimination against the petitioners, no writ as sought can be issued at the instance of the petitioners.
26. For all the reasons recorded above, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
27. However, after the results are declared, it would be open to the persons, in the event it is found that the process of selection has been discriminatory against them, to challenge the selection on all grounds as may be available to them. The said right to challenge on all grounds would also be available to the petitioners in the event they can highlight arbitrary discrimination against them based on the selection procedure after the results are declared.
August 5th, 2026 [Pankaj Bhatia, J.]
Nishant
