Allahabad High Court
Meena Kumari Dubey vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 23 February, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:31620 Judgment Reserved on 13.2.2024 Delivered on 23.2.2024. Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3116 of 2021 Petitioner :- Meena Kumari Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
2. In present case following dates and events are not under dispute:
Date Event 1996 Petitioner passed a School Learning Certificate Examination conducted by Government of Nepal.1998
Petitioner passed Intermediate Examination in year 1998 conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. 2003 Petitioner passed Bachelor of Arts from Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur.
2014.
Petitioner successfully completed correspondence course of B.T.C. from District Institution of Education and Training, Sant Kabir Nagar.
2016.
Petitioner qualified Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET).
11.10.2020/16.10.2020/29.10.2020 Petitioner participated in counselling for selection of Assistant Teacher on 11.10.2020 and was appointed on 16.10.2020 in a Primary School at Sant Kabir Nagar, where she joined on 29.10.2020.
18.1.2021/22.1.2021 Petitioner's appointment was declared void abinitio in view of Clause 15 of Circular dated 18.1.2021 February, 2021 Petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging above referred order.
3. Relevant Clause 15 of above referred Circular dated 18.1.2021 is mentioned hereinafter:
"15. शैक्षिक अभिलेख नेपाल देश से-ऐसे अभ्यर्थी जिसके द्वारा नेपाल से शैक्षिक अर्हता प्राप्त की गयी है। सचिव, माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद, उ०प्र० प्रयागराज के पत्रांक-परिषद-9/743 दिनांक 25 अक्टूबर 2016 जिसमें हाईस्कूल एवं इण्टरमीडिएट परीक्षा के समकक्ष घोषित परीक्षाओं का विवरण है, में नेपाल देश से उत्तीर्ण हाई स्कूल एवं इण्टरमीडिएट की परीक्षा अंकित नहीं है। चूंकि नेपाल देश से उत्तीर्ण हाई स्कूल एवं इण्टरमीडिएट की परीक्षा को पूर्व में दी गयी समकक्षता समाप्त कर दी गयी है। ऐसी स्थिति में इन अभ्यर्थियों का चयन निरस्त कर दिया जाये"
4. The relevant part of unamended and amended (by Notification dated 5.3.2014) of Viniyam Adhyay 12 of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is mentioned hereinafter, that earlier at Serial No.20, School Leaving Certificate from Nepal was eligible to get admission in Intermediate Examination in India. However, by referred amendment it was deleted. There is no dispute that the petitioner has passed Intermediate Examination before above referred amendment.
5. For reference relevant part of notification dated 5.3.2014, wherein before amendment and after amendment is reproduced hereinafter:
"निदेशक, शिक्षा विभाग, उत्तर प्रदेश कार्यालय, सचिव, माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद्, उत्तर प्रदेश, इलाहाबाद विज्ञप्ति 5 मार्च, 2014 ई० सं० परिषद्-9/836- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी हेतु एतदद्वारा विज्ञप्ति एवं प्रसारित है कि शासन ने अपने पत्र संख्या 384/15-7-2014-1(92)/2012, दिनांक 5 मार्च, 2014 के द्वारा परिषद विनियमों के अध्याय-बारह के विनियम-17(7) एवं अध्याय-चौदह के विनियम-2 को निम्नवत् संशोधित किये जाने की स्वीकृति इण्टरमीडिएट शिक्षा अधिनियम, 1921 की धारा16 (2) के अन्तर्गत प्रदान कर दी हैः-
विनियम संशोधन का प्रारूप अध्याय-बारह वर्तमान विनियम संशोधित विनियम विनियम-17(7) विनियम-17(7) निम्नलिखित परीक्षाओं को परिषद की इण्टरमीडिएट परीक्षा के समक्ष मान्यता प्राप्त हैः (क) विश्वविद्यालयों तथा भारत में विधिवत् स्थापित शिक्षा परिषदों की इण्टरमीडिएट परीक्षा।
(ख) सम्पूर्णानन्द संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, वाराणसी द्वारा वर्ष 2001 तक संचालित उत्तर मध्यमा परीक्षा। वर्ष 2002 से माध्यमिक संस्कृत शिक्षा परिषद, उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा संचालित उत्तर मध्यमा परीक्षा।
(ग) एम०एस० विश्व-विद्यालय, बड़ौदा द्वारा संचालित एफ०वाई-बी०ए०, एफ०वाई०बी० काम० तथा एफ०वाई०वी०एस०-सी० परीक्षायें।
(घ) x x x (ड) x x x (च) x x x (छ) x x x (ज) x x x (झ)x x x (ञ) x x x (ट) x x x (ठ)x x x (ड़) x x x
निम्नलिखित परीक्षा संस्थाओं द्वारा संचालित परीक्षाओं को परिषद की इण्टरमीडिएट परीक्षा के समक्ष मान्यता प्राप्त हैः 1- बोर्ड ऑफ इण्टरमीडिएट एजूकेशन (आन्ध्र प्रदेश) 2- असम हायर सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन काउन्सिल, गुवाहाटी।
3- गवर्मेन्ट ऑफ कर्नाटका डिपार्टमेन्ट ऑफ प्री- यूनीवर्सिटी एजूकेशन, बैंगलोर।
4- काउन्सिल ऑफ हायर सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, उडीसा।
5- बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन उत्तराखण्ड, रामनगर, नैनीताल।
6- गुजरात सेकेण्डरी एण्ड हायर सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन बोर्ड गांधीनगर।
7- केरला बोर्ड ऑफ पब्लिक एक्जामिनेशन, तिरूवनन्तपुरम।
8- महाराष्ट्र स्टेट बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एण्ड हायर सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, पूणे।
9- काउन्सिल ऑफ हायर सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन मणीपुर, इम्फाल।
10- वेस्ट बंगाल काउन्सिल ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, कोलकता।
11- माध्यमिक संस्कृत शिक्षा परिषद, उ०प्र० द्वारा संचालित उत्तर मध्यमा परीक्षा।
12- उत्तर प्रदेश मदरसा शिक्षा परिषद, लखनऊ द्वारा संचालित आलिम परीक्षा।
13- बिहार स्कूल एग्जामिनेशन बोर्ड, पटना।
14- सेन्ट्रल बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, नई दिल्ली।
15- छत्तीसगढ़ बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, रायपुर।
16- काउन्सिल फार दि इण्डियन स्कूल सर्टीफिकेट एग्जामिनेशन, नई दिल्ली।
17- दयालबाग एजूकेशन इन्स्टीट्यूट (डीम्ड यूनिवर्सिटी) दयालबाग आगरा।
18- गोवा बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एण्ड हायर सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, गोवा।
19- बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन हरियाणा, भिवानी।
20- हिमांचल प्रदेश स्कूल शिक्षा बोर्ड, कांगड़ा।
21- जे०एण्ड के० स्टेट बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन, जम्मू।
22- झारखण्ड एकेडमी काउन्सिल, रांची।
23- माध्यमिक शिक्षा मण्डल मध्य प्रदेश, भोपाल।
24- मेघालय बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन, मेघालय।
25- मिजोरम बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन, ऐजाल।
26- नागालैण्ड बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन, कोहिमा।
27- पंजाब स्कूल एजूकेशन बोर्ड, मोहाली।
28- माध्यमिक शिक्षा बोर्ड, राजस्थान, अजमेर।
29- स्टेट बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एक्जामिनेशन (सेकेण्डरी) एवं बोर्ड ऑफ हायर सेकेण्डरी एक्जामिनेशन, तमिलनाडू।
30- त्रिपुरा बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन अगरतला।
31- राष्ट्रीय ओपेन स्कूल नई दिल्ली द्वारा संचालित सीनियर सेकेण्डरी (उच्च माध्यमिक) परीक्षा इस प्रतिबन्ध के साथ कि यह परीक्षा कम से कम पाँच विषयों में उत्तीर्ण की गई हो।
32- भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित ऐसे परीक्षा संस्था/विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा संचालित इण्टरमीडिएट अथवा इसके समक्ष संचालित परीक्षायें जिनके सम्बन्ध में सचिव, माध्यमिक शिक्षा, उ०प्र० शासन का समाधान हो गया है, परिषद की इण्टरमीडिएट परीक्षा के समकक्ष मान्य होगी।
अध्याय-14 वर्तमान विनियम संशोधित विनियम विनियम 2 विनियम 2 ज्ञातव्य- बनारस हिन्दू तथा अलीगढ़ मुस्लिम विश्वविद्यालय की मैट्रीक्यूलेशन परीक्षा का तात्पर्य प्रथम की प्रवेश परीक्षा तथा द्वितीय की हाईस्कूल परीक्षा से है।
(2) x x x
(3) x x x
(4) x x x
(5) x x x
(6) x x x
(7) x x x
(8) x x x
(9) x x x
(10) x x x
(11) x x x
(12) x x x
(13) x x x
(14) x x x
(15) x x x
(16) x x x
(17) x x x
(18) x x x
(19) x x x
(20) नेपाल शासन द्वारा संचालित स्कूल लीविंग सर्टीफिकेट परीक्षा।
(21) x x x
(22) x x x
(23) x x x
(24) x x x
(25) x x x
(26) x x x
(27) x x x
(28) x x x
(29) x x x
(30) x x x
(31) x x x
(32) x x x
(33) x x x
(34) x x x
(35) x x x
(36) x x x
(37) x x x
(38) x x x
(39) x x x
(40) x x x
(41) x x x
(42) x x x
(43) x x x
(44) x x x
(45) x x x
(46) x x x
(47) x x x
(48) x x x
(49) x x x
(50) x x x
(51) x x x
(52) x x x
(53) x x x
(54) x x x
(55) x x x
(56) x x x
(57) x x x
(58) x x x
(59) x x x
(60) x x x
(61) x x x
(62) x x x
(63) x x x
(64) x x x
(65) x x x
(66) x x x
(67) x x x
(68) x x x
(69) x x x
(70) x x x
(71) x x x
निम्नलिखित परीक्षा संस्थाओं द्वारा संचालित परीक्षाएं इण्टरमीडिएट परीक्षा के निर्धारित पाठ्यक्रम के अध्ययन के लिये परीक्षार्थियों को प्रवेश का पात्र बनाने के उद्देश्य से परिषद की हाईस्कूल परीक्षा के समकक्ष घोषित की जाती है-
1- बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन (आन्ध्र प्रदेश)।
2- बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन गुवाहाटी असम।
3- बिहार स्कूल एग्जामिनेशन बोर्ड, पटना।
4- सेन्ट्रल बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, नई दिल्ली।
5- छत्तीसगढ़ बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, रायपुर।
6- काउन्सिल फार दि इण्डियन स्कूल सर्टीफिकेट एग्जामिनेशन, नई दिल्ली।
7- दयालबाग एजूकेशन इस्टीट्यूट (डीम्ड यूनिवर्सिटी) आगरा।
8- गोवा बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एण्ड हायर सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, गोवा।
9- गुजरात सेकेण्डरी एण्ड हायर सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन बोर्ड, गांधीनगर गुजरात।
10- बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन हरियाणा, भिवानी।
11- हिमांचल प्रदेश बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन धर्मशाला, कांगड़ा।
12- जे०एण्ड के० स्टेट बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन, जम्मू।
13- झारखण्ड एकेडमी काउन्सिल, रांची।
14- कर्नाटका सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन एग्जामिनेशन बोर्ड, बंगलौर।
15- केरला बोर्ड ऑफ हायर सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, तिरूवनन्तपुरम।
16- महाराष्ट्र स्टेट बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एवं हायर सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, पूणे।
17- बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन मध्य प्रदेश, भोपाल।
18- बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, मणिपुर इम्फाल।
19- मेघालय बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन, मेघालय।
20- मिजोरम बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन, ऐजाल।
21- नागालैण्ड बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन, कोहिमा।
22- बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन उडीसा, कटक।
23- पंजाब स्कूल एजूकेशन बोर्ड, मोहाली।
24- बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन राजस्थान, अजमेर।
25- स्टेट बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एग्जामिनेशन (सेकेण्डरी) एण्ड बोर्ड आफ हायर सेकेण्डरी एक्जामिनेशन तमिलनाडू।
26- त्रिपुरा बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन अगरतला।
27- वेस्ट बंगाल बोर्ड ऑफ सेकेण्डरी एजूकेशन, कोलकता।
28- बोर्ड ऑफ स्कूल एजूकेशन उत्तराखण्ड, रामनगर, नैनीताल।
29- उ० प्र० मदरसा शिक्षा परिषद, लखनऊ द्वारा संचालित मौलवी परीक्षा, अरबी और मुंशी परीक्षा फारसी।
30- माध्यमिक संस्कृत शिक्षा परिषद, उ०प्र० द्वारा संचालित पूर्व मध्यमा अथवा कोई अन्य उच्चतर परीक्षा।
31- राष्ट्रीय ओपेन स्कूल नई दिल्ली द्वारा संचालित सेकेण्डरी (माध्यमिक) परीक्षा इस प्रतिबन्ध के साथ कि यह परीक्षा कम से कम छः विषयों में उत्तीर्ण की गई हो।
32- भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित ऐसे परीक्षा संस्था/विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा संचालित हाईस्कूल (मैट्रीकुलेशन) अथवा इसके समकक्ष संचालित परीक्षायें जिसके सम्बन्ध में सचिव, माध्यमिक शिक्षा उत्तर प्रदेश शासन का समाधान हो गया है, परिषद की हाईस्कूल परीक्षा के समकक्ष मान्य होंगी।
6. The counsel for petitioner and respondents are in agreement, so far as above referred position after amendment of year 2014, i.e. High School from Nepal was no longer eligible for Intermediate Examination in India.
7. The controversy in present case is that whether amendment carried out in 2014 would be enforceable retrospectively i.e. petitioner who had passed intermediate in 1998 i.e. much prior to 2014, would also become ineligible and consequently her Intermediate Examination would became ineffective.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that effect of amendment would be prospective only, whereas according to learned counsel for respondents, it would have retrospective effect and it would have adverse effect on petitioner also.
9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
10. The notification dated 5.3.2014 does not disclose, date of its enforcement. A NOTE mentioned at the end of Notification, which is reproduced hereinafter, would clarify the position that few steps were required to be taken i.e. respective Rules be required to be amended, thereafter it was required to be published on website.
"नोटः- उक्त के अतिरिक्त नई परीक्षा संस्थाओं के सम्बन्ध में समाधान होते ही सचिव, माध्यमिक शिक्षा, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन द्वारा उन्हे सम्मिलित करने हेतु नियमावली में संशोधन की कार्यवाही प्रारम्भ किये जाने एवं तदोपरान्त विभागीय वेबसाइट पर उन्हें प्रदर्शित करने के साथ-साथ प्रत्येक दो वर्षों में संस्थाओं का पुनर्परीक्षण कर नियमावली संशोधित कर इन संस्थाओं के सम्बन्ध में अद्यावधिक करायी जायेगी। नियमावली में संशोधनों का सक्षम स्तर से अनुमोदन प्राप्त होने तक सचिव, माध्यमिक शिक्षा उत्तर प्रदेश शासन का समाधान पर्याप्त होगा।"
11 On basis of above referred undisputed facts, when petitioner has passed Intermediate Examination, in India in 1998, School Leaving Certificate from State of Nepal was recognized eligibility for admission in Intermediate in India and said certificate from Nepal was de-recognized in 2014 by way of amendment i.e. after sixteen years. As referred above, amendment does not qualify with words retrospectively and as per NOTE it has to be implemented after due amendment in rules etc. There is no reference in regard to Students from Nepal who have already passed Intermediate Examination in India.
12. The impugned order is passed on basis of Clause 15 of Circular dated 18.1.2021 which was issued in regard to ambiguities occurred in examination process of 69000 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers. Various ambiguities and their respective remedial measures were mentioned in said communication. Clause 15 being part of this order. It has reference of earlier referred amendment that High School and Intermediate Examination from Nepal are discontinued from being equivalent to High School and Intermediate Examination of State of U.P. with further direction to cancel appointment of such candidates who have passed High School or Intermediate from Nepal.
13. The petitioner has not challenged the aforesaid clause which is specific in regard to case of petitioner that since High School from Nepal is no longer equivalent to High School from State of U.P., therefore, appointment of petitioner was cancelled. The above Communication was issued specifically in regard to ambiguities occurred during appointment for 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers as such Rules of a game were changed after its commencement, but there is a legal hurdle that above referred clause of Communication dated 18.1.2021 is not under challenge in present writ petition.
14. Surprisingly averment of writ petition has though referred Circular dated 18.1.2021, but has vaguely assailed it, even without referring its relevant clause. The relevant page of Circular is even missing. Relevant paragraph 24 of writ petition is reproduced hereinafter:
" 24.That so far as circular dated 18.01.2021 of the Director General School Education, U.P., Lucknow is concerned, it has nothing to do with the qualification of High School having acquired by the petitioner by passing School Leaving Certificate Examination conducted by Nepal Government which has already been granted equivalence under Chapter XIV intermediate Examination of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Therefore, it appears that the District Basic Education Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar has misinterpreted the circular dated 18.01.2021 of Director General School Education, U.P., Lucknow. The copy of the circular dated 18.01.2021 of the Director General School Education, U.P., Lucknow is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.16 to this Writ Petition."
15. At stage of rejoinder affidavit, petitioner had a chance to fill the lacuna but has failed to do so, as except that it was mentioned that relevant clause was contrary to law pronounced by a Division Bench, but it was not specifically challenged. Para 9 of rejoinder affidavit is reproduced hereinafter:
"9. That the contents of paragraph NO. 13 of the counter affidavit are vehemently denied, while the contents of paragraph 24 of the writ petition are reiterated, in reply it is hereby submitted that the circular dated 18.01.2021 insofar as it relates to point NO. 15 is against the law pronounced by the Full Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court, So far as the relevant page is concerned, it is missing in the circular dated 18.01.2021 due to inadvertence and oversight and there is nothing like the answering respondent has made an averment in para-under-reply the same is missing by the bonafide act which has no bearing upon any concealment."
16. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a Full Bench of this Court in Dhanpal and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2013 (4) ESC 2299 (ALL) (FB), wherein following issues were referred:-
" (a) Whether Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, up to the year 2008 i.e. till it was recognized by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School, obtained with English as one of the subject and passed in one year is a valid qualification equivalent to High School, regardless of Gurukul having been declared a fake University by the UGC?
(b) Whether the decision of the division bench in Special Appeal No. 1990 of 2011 dated 13.10.2011 (Indrawati Devi v. State of U.P. and others), which holds that "Adhikari Pariksha" certificate obtained from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura cannot be held to be a valid degree, does not lay down the correct law? "
17. The Full Bench after deliberation, answered the reference in following terms:
"54 In view of the discussion made above, we answer the reference thus:
(a) Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, up to the year 2008 ie. till it was recognised by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School, obtained with English as one of the subject, and passed in one year, is a valid qualification equivalent to High School, regardless of Gurukul having been declared to fake University by the UGC.
(b) The decision of the division bench in Special Appeal No. 1990 of 2011 dated 13.10.2011 (Indrawati Devi V. State of U.P. and others), which holds that " Adhikari Pariksha" certificate obtained from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura cannot be held to be a valid degree, does not lay down the correct law.
Let the papers of this writ petition be placed before the appropriate Court for further orders."
18. Paragraph 53 of Dhanpal (supra) being relevant is also mentioned hereinafter:
"53. In the instant case, the revocation of the Entry No. 30 from Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV was made in deference to the order of this Court in Indrawati Devi's case (supra). From the document enclosed with the compilation, as has been noticed by us in paragraph 27 herein above, it does not appear that the Board carried out any independent exercise to ascertain that Gurukul, as an institution imparting education up to the secondary level, for which it had been accorded recognition, never existed. No material has been brought on record to suggest that Gurukul was a bogus or a fictitious institution. Thus in view of the law noticed herein above, providing retrospectivity to the amendment in the Regulations would be completely unjustified inasmuch as the equivalence earlier accorded to "Adhikari Pariksha", up to the year 2008, by the U.P. Board, in exercise of its power under Section 15 read with Section 7 of the Act, 1921, has conferred rights of enduring character on persons who pursued the course and obtained such certificates, and such right having vested in them cannot be extinguished by mere deletion of Entry No.30 from Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921, particularly, in absence of any statutory intendment to make it applicable from retrospective effect. Providing retrospectivity to such an amendment would play havoc with the life and career of innumerable persons who, on the strength of Adhikari Pariksha certificate, have pursued and obtained higher qualifications."
19. As referred above, neither amendment nor above referred subsequent circular specify that amendment has retrospective effect. Clause 15 of Circular dated 18.1.2021 does not envisage prospective or retrospective as well as prejudice caused to an existing right or obligation as held in Dhanpal (supra) would not be legal. No opportunity was granted to petitioner to submit his stand before impugned order was passed. Otherwise also rules of game have changed after game was over being adverse to petitioner which is also against settled principles of law.
20. The legal hurdle i.e. petitioner has not challenged Clause 15 of Circular dated 18.1.2021, though material, but in view of Dhanpal (supra), it could be ignored, therefore, basis of impugned order i.e. Clause 15 of Circular dated 18.1.2021 could not held to be enforced retrospectively i.e. could not be enforced in respect of such candidates who have passed Intermediate in State of U.P. after passing School Leaving Certificate from Nepal before the amendment issued by Notification dated 5.3.2014 and undisputedly petitioner has passed School Leaving Certificate from Nepal in 1996 and Intermediate Examination from State of U.P. in 1998 i.e. about 16 years before amendment came into existence, therefore impugned order could not legally survive and is accordingly set-aside and its legal consequence shall follow subject to principles of 'no work no pay.
21. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :-23.2.2024 SB