Roshan Kumar Pandey And 29 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7526 of 2026
…..Petitioner(s)
Roshan Kumar Pandey And 29 Others
Versus
State of U.P. and Another …..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Shivendu Ojha, Sr. Advocate,
Umang Chandra Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Gagan Mehta
Court No. - 32
HON’BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri K. Shahi, learned
counsel for Respondent-U.P. Education Service Selection Commission,
Prayagraj.
3. An Advertisement No. 51 for the post of Assistant Professors in
34 Subjects was issued in 2022 by U.P. Higher Education Service
Commission. A challenge was made qua to qualifications determined by
Commission for appointment of Assistant Professors (B.Ed.) and a
Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order dated 09.12.2022 in

2
Writ A No. 7526 of 2026
Writ-A No. 12803 of 2022, Neutral Citation No. 2022:AHC:214381,
whereby said Advertisement so far as appointment on 75 posts of
Assistant Professors (B.Ed.) was found to be contrary to law being not in
terms of the N.C.T.E. Regulations, therefore, quashed with further
direction that Commission may issue fresh Advertisement with respect
to said posts only. For reference relevant part of said order is mentioned
hereinafter:
“ 13. Consequently, the impugned Advertisement No. 51 issued
by the Commission insofar as it relates to appointment of 75
posts of Assistant Professor (B.Ed.) is found to be contrary to and
lesser than that enforced by the special law. Therefore, to that
extent, the impugned Advertisement is contrary to the mandatory
law. It is quashed (only to that extent). The Commission may
proceed to refund the application money to all the affected
applicants through same mode it may have received that money
from the individual candidates. Such compliance may be made
within a period of two weeks from today. The Commission may
issue a fresh advertisement with respect to the above posts
strictly in accordance with the norms of the N.C.T.E.
Regulations.” (Emphasis supplied)
4. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission has made challenge to
aforesaid order by way of a Special Appeal Defective No. 287 of 2023,
which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide an order
dated 21.04.2023, Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:87720-DB. A further
attempt at behest of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission before
Supreme Court also remained unsuccessful vide an order dated
01.09.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17719 of 2023
except a clarification that refund as directed by the Writ Court shall be
made on applying by individual applicants on furnishing their account
details.
5. It would be relevant to observe here that examination qua to
remaining 33 subjects was held, however, due to certain irregularities,
entire written examination was cancelled with direction that a fresh
written examination be conducted so far as 33 subjects are concerned.
This order was upheld by a Writ Court of this Court though in a Special
Appeal, the Division Bench has limited the cancellation only qua to 5

3
Writ A No. 7526 of 2026
subjects out of 33 subjects with further direction that no fresh written
examination would be required for remaining subjects, i.e., 28 subjects.
So far as present case is concerned, fresh examination for 75 posts of
Assistant Professors (B.Ed.) was required to be conducted independently
irrespective of above order of cancellation passed by Writ Court as
modified by a Division Bench.
6. In pursuance of above referred judgments of Single Judge,
Division Bench and Supreme Court, the Secretary, U.P. Education
Service Selection Commission issued a press note dated 23.05.2025
whereby in pursuance of earlier Advertisement No. 51 registrations were
opened for increased 107 posts of Assistant Professors (B.Ed.) with cut
off date 31.08.2022 so far as qualification and eligibility is concerned,
i.e., fixed in terms of initial Advertisement.
7. Aforesaid order was challenged by petitioners by way of Writ-A
No. 8260 of 2025 which was disposed of vide an order dated 01.07.2025
with following directions:
“14. After taking into consideration of the contents of the petition
and the submissions of learned Senior Counsel, I find force in the
argument but I have also considered that the recruitment process
has already been started in pursuance of the new amended
advertisement, therefore I am not inclined to interfere in the
recruitment process at this stage but in the interest of justice, I am
inclined to consider the alternative prayer to allow the writ
petitioners to fill the form online as they have approached this
Court by way of filing the instant writ petition before the last
date of filling of the form as per amended advertisement.
15. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Commission is directed to open the portal to enable the
petitioners for filling up their form for one day i.e. 7th July, 2025
from 10.00 a.m. to 5 p.m. It is also made clear that the aforesaid
direction has been passed only for the writ petitioners as the
instant writ petition has been filed prior to the last date of
submission of form as per the amended advertisement.”
(Emphasis supplied)

4
Writ A No. 7526 of 2026
8. Petitioners thereafter filed a Contempt Application (Civil) No.
3414 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2025 that
order of Writ Court was already complied with.
9. Subsequently, an intra-Court appeal against the order passed by
Coordinate Bench was also dismissed probably on ground that
respondents have issued a fresh notification dated 28.04.2026, which is
impugned in present writ petition, on a ground that cut off date for
educational qualification was again fixed as 31.08.2022, i.e., the
observations made in earlier round of litigation were not complied with.
10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that
admittedly when first Advertisement No. 51 was issued in the year 2022
wherein above referred cut off date was mentioned, petitioners were not
qualified and they have attained minimum qualification subsequently. It
is the case of petitioners that once a fresh notification is issued the
Commission ought to have included fresh candidates also, i.e., a fresh
cut off date be issued in terms of notification dated 28.04.2026 so that
petitioners may also apply.
11. Learned Senior Advocate also referred the judgments passed in
earlier round of litigation that Commission was directed to issue a fresh
Advertisement, therefore, no fresh notification could be issued in
continuance of earlier Advertisement No. 51 of 2022, rather it would be
a fresh recruitment process on basis of a fresh Advertisement, therefore,
a fresh cut off date was required to fix so that all eligible candidates,
who were not qualified earlier, may participate and that number of post
has also been increased.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Commission submitted
that basic Advertisement was of the year 2022 and when it was cancelled
with liberty to issue a fresh Advertisement, cut off date was not
disturbed. Requirement of fresh Advertisement was only for the purpose
of educational qualification in terms of orders and fixed by Competent
Authority.

5
Writ A No. 7526 of 2026
13. Learned counsel further submits that during interregnum period
now a new Act has come into force which has different method of
recruitment for Assistant Professors, therefore, in case petitioners’ prayer
is accepted, the examination has to be conducted in terms of current
procedure whereas recruitment arising out of Advertisement No. 51 so
far as rest of 33 subjects were conducted in terms of earlier process,
therefore, to keep uniformity, the examination for Assistant Professors
(B.Ed.) has to be conducted in terms of procedure applicable in the year
2022, therefore, cut off date was not disturbed. In a process arising out
of same Advertisement two different type of selection process cannot be
adopted.
14. I have considered the submissions and perused the material
available on record.
15. The first issue before this Court for consideration is, whether in
pursuance of an order dated 09.12.2022 whereby selection on the post of
Assistant Professor (B.Ed.) arising out of Advertisement No. 51/2022
was quashed with a direction that fresh Advertisement be issued after
adhering to the norms of N.C.T.E. Regulations, whether it would be
considered a fresh Advertisement for all purposes notwithstanding that
initially it was proposed alongwith Advertisement No. 51 with other
subjects.
16. To answer above question, the Court takes note of para 13 of order
dated 09.12.2022 that there was a specific direction that Commission
may issue a fresh Advertisement with respect of posts of Assistant
Professor (B.Ed.), therefore, according to opinion of this Court selection
process for post of Assistant Professor (B.Ed.) was separated from
original Advertisement No. 51 and any argument of learned counsel for
Commission that in all circumstances fresh selection process for said
post would be co-related with selection process of other subjects arising
out of Advertisement No. 51, is accordingly rejected. Both recruitment
process are now independent and has no relation inter se.

6
Writ A No. 7526 of 2026
17. On basis of above opinion, now the Court proceed further on a
premise that selection process so far as Assistant Professor (B.Ed.) is
concerned, it would be a separate and independent process.
18. It is also on record that initial number of posts, i.e., 75 has now
been increased to 107 and till date Commission is not able to conduct
fresh recruitment. They have earlier issued a fresh Advertisement which
was later on withdrawn from consideration of last date of educational
qualifications. Initial Advertisement was issued in the year 2022, i.e.,
four years ago, therefore, undisputedly petitioners and other similarly
situated candidates have now become eligible to participate in said
selection process and that increase in posts also indicates that posts
become vacant in subsequent years have also been included. Therefore,
if the stand of Commission is accepted that cut off date so far as
educational qualification is concerned, would be the date initially fixed,
i.e., August, 2022, it would be arbitrary so far as candidates who have
now attained educational qualification till fresh Advertisement is issued
in 2026 and to non-suit them would not only be adverse to them but they
will also miss a chance to appear and compete in a fresh selection
process.
19. At this stage, Court also takes note that by an order dated
09.12.2022 even a direction was passed that application fees may be
returned to affected applicants. Therefore, it is not necessary that all
candidates who have applied in the year 2022 would definitely apply in
fresh recruitment process. Otherwise also, presently there are only 30
candidates before this Court. Therefore, in order to have a fair
competition, cut off date would only be the date of fresh Advertisement,
i.e., 28.04.2026 and any candidate who got eligible by said date would
be allowed to participate in recruitment process.
20. Accordingly, it is directed that a ‘Corrigendum’ be issued so that
not only petitioners but any other eligible candidates, if want to apply,
can apply. The ‘Corrigendum’ shall be issued within a period of two
weeks from today.

7
Writ A No. 7526 of 2026
21. Now the question is, whether examination be conducted as per old
provision of new provision. The Court finds that since process was
initiated in 2022 and new Act has come later on and even rest of
selection process have recently conducted in terms of old provisions,
therefore, there would be no legal difficulty that Commission may
continue examination process in terms of old provisions (See, Km.
Lakshmi and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2026:AHC:53469 as
modified by a Division Bench in Harvindar Singh and others vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2026:AHC:84883-DB). It is clarified that it is always
open for State Government to take a decision to conduct examination as
per new provision as it would not prejudice other candidates, since it is
informed that there is not much change in new process about procedure.
22. With aforesaid observations/ directions, this writ petition is
disposed of.
May 25, 2026
AK
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad