Allahabad High Court
Tabassum vs Shri S.K. Shiradkar, Chairman Uttar ... on 9 March, 2026
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6207 of 2025
Tabassum
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Shri S.K. Shiradkar, Chairman Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment And Promotion Board And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Madhavendra Singh, Rekha Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Pursuant to the earlier order, the personal affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, District Sambhal has come, which is taken on record.
2. Learned Standing Counsel states that the writ Court on 02.09.2025 had directed for reinstating the applicant along with arrears of salary. Against the order of the writ Court, a Special Appeal (Defective) No. 1160 of 2025 was filed which was disposed of on 14.01.2026 upholding the order of the writ Court dated 28.07.2022 and following order was passed:
"1. Heard Sri Ramanand Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Madhavendra Singh, learned counsel for the original petitioner.
Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 02 of 2025
2. Present appeal has been filed with a delay of 74 days.
3. In absence of any objection raised, delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed.
Order on Appeal
4. Present intra-Court appeal has arisen from the judgement and order of the learned single judge dated 02.09.2025 in Tabassum Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.; 2025:AHC:154532.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it remains undisputed to the State, at present, the petitioner had relied on a document described as Caste Certificate, declaring her caste OBC. On the strength of that certificate she was granted age relaxation of 17 days to appear in the examination. She was successful and selected as a Constable in the police department on 01.07.2011. It is also not disputed that after rendering seven years of service on 28.07.2022 her selection and therefore appointment was cancelled upon an ex parte enquiry instituted to doubt the genuineness of the Caste Certificate.
6. While learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would refer to issuance of notice to Tehsildar who may have issued such Caste Certificate; the father of the petitioner to ascertain his caste, and other proceedings, it remains admitted to the State that no notice came to be issued to the petitioner to doubt the existence or genuineness of the Caste Certificate relied by her, before the order cancelling her selection and appointment was passed on 28.07.2022.
7. In face of such admission or undisputed fact, to that extent, there is no error on principle in the order of the learned single judge. We find, the order dated 28.07.2022 cancelling the petitioner's selection has been quashed. To the extent rules of natural justice have not even been applied to give the petitioner a minimal opportunity to dispute the imputation made against her, the challenge raised to the order of the learned single judge may not call for any interference.
8. At this stage, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel pressed that the State authorities may be granted fresh opportunity to examine the issue after issuing proper show-cause notice to the petitioner. Therefore, it may be left open to the State authorities to institute fresh/proper enquiry on the first part. However, to the extent the learned single judge may have confined the State to institute a regular disciplinary proceedings, we have our doubts. In face of serious allegation made of forged Caste Certificate relied by the petitioner and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.; AIR 2004 SC 1469.
9. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of as below :
(i) The order of the learned single judge quashing the order dated 28.07.2022 is affirmed.
(ii) At the same time, it is left open to the State authorities to act in accordance with the law after calling for report of the District Level Committee about the issuance and genuineness of the Caste Certificate relied by the petitioner i.e. before from the time they may take and initiate any fresh action.
10. In the meantime, the State authorities shall give effect to the order of the learned single judge and reinstate the petitioner by 31.01.2026."
3. Learned Standing Counsel states that the applicant has been reinstated but the report of the District Level Committee is still awaited as the genuineness of the caste certificate relied upon by the applicant and thus, the salary has not been paid.
4. This Court finds that the officer concerned is in contempt as he has misread the order of the writ Court as well as the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has specifically said in paragraph no. 9(i) that the order of the writ Court is affirmed. Once the order of the writ Court was affirmed, not only the reinstatement was to be made by the officer concerned but also the arrears of salary was to be released.
5. This Court, as a last opportunity, grants a month's time to the opposite party to comply the order of the writ Court. In case of non-compliance, the Superintendent of Police, District Sambhal shall remain present in the Court for framing of charges.
6. List this matter after one month.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) March 9, 2026 A. V. Singh