Allahabad High Court

MANISH KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 8 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed on merits
Bench: MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

Holding

The court quashed the non‑speaking order dismissing the appeal and directed a fresh reasoned order, while upholding the cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature for not meeting the essential eligibility at the relevant time.

Summary

Manish Kumar applied for the post of Regional Inspector (Technical) where the advertisement required a valid heavy motor vehicle licence. He possessed only a learner's licence at the time of filing and later obtained a permanent licence after the application deadline, leading to the cancellation of his candidature on 03.08.2026. He appealed this cancellation, but the appeal was dismissed on 25.08.2026 on the ground that no new material was presented. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal, arguing that he should be allowed to appear for the interview scheduled on 10.09.2026. The High Court held that an essential eligibility condition must be satisfied at the date of application and cannot be relaxed absent a statutory provision, but quashed the non‑speaking order dismissing the appeal and directed the authority to pass a reasoned order, while upholding the original cancellation of candidature. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

The petitioner’s lack of the requisite heavy motor vehicle licence at the time of application and whether this disqualifies him from consideration.
Whether the High Court can set aside a non‑speaking order dismissing the petitioner’s appeal.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appear for the interview despite the alleged deficiency.

Subjects

recruitment
eligibility criteria
driving licence
public service appointment
writ petition
Article 226
non‑speaking order
appeal dismissal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 14501 of 2026

Manish Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aushim Luthra, Irshad Husain, Utkarshni
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mahendra Narain Singh

Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Heard Ms. Utkarshni Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel
for the respondent Commission.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated
25.08.2026, whereby appeal of the petitioner challenging the rejection order
of petitioner's candidature has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for
the post of Regional Inspector (Technical) pursuant to an advertisement
dated 03.11.2020, in which the last date for submission of online applicatioin
form was 03.12.2020. As per one of the conditions in the advertisement, the
candidate must have held driving license authorizing him to drive a motor
cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles.

The petitioner being eligible possessing learner's licence, annexed at Page-
51 of the writ petition, submitted application prior to the last date and was
permitted to appear in the written examination on the basis of said licence.
Surprisingly, vide order dated 03.08.2026 the candidature of the petitioner
was cancelled citing deficiency of heavy motor vehicle licence. The
petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal annexing
therewith the driving licence as required, which has been brought on record
at Page-50 of the writ petition. The said appeal has been rejected on
25.08.2026 mentioning a vague reason that nothing new has been brought on
the record by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that the interview is scheduled tomorrow, i.e., 10.09.2026,
WRIA No. 14501 of 2026
2

therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to appear in the said interview.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Commission submits that it is a settled
position of law that in case the petitioner does not possess the requisite
qualification as mentioned in the advertisement on the last date of
submission of application form, he or she cannot be permitted to appear in
the examination The permanent licence which has been annexed along with
the appeal was issued on 10.08.2022 i.e. much after the last date of
submission of application form i.e. 03.12.2020.

Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the requisite licence, which was
expressly stipulated as an essential condition of eligibility under the
advertisement. Such a condition cannot be treated as a mere procedural
formality or waived at the instance of an individual candidate. The eligibility
criteria prescribed in the advertisement constitute the parameters governing
the selection process and are required to be applied uniformly and without
exception.

The law is well settled that a candidate who does not fulfil an essential
eligibility condition prescribed under the applicable rules or advertisement
cannot claim a vested or enforceable right to be considered for appointment.
In the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., (2011) 12
SCC 85, the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the recruitment
process must be conducted strictly in accordance with the terms of the
advertisement and that relaxation of an eligibility condition is impermissible
in the absence of an enabling provision under the governing rules or the
advertisement. The same principle has been consistently reiterated in the
case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 11 SCC
58; Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Chander Shekhar & Anr., (1997) 4
SCC 18; Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan & Ors.,
1993 Supp (3) SCC 168; and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India,
(2007) 4 SCC 54.

In the present case, the petitioner having failed to satisfy an essential
eligibility criterion, his candidature was liable to be rejected at the threshold.
This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, cannot supplant or dilute the eligibility conditions prescribed
by the competent authority, nor can it confer eligibility where none existed
under the governing framework. The rejection of the petitioner's candidature
WRIA No. 14501 of 2026
3

on account of his failure to possess the requisite licence is, therefore, wholly
consonant with the prescribed conditions and the settled position of law.
However, perusal of the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 reflects that the
impugned order is a non-speaking order and thus is unsustainable.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.08.2026, insofar as the
petitioner is concerned, is quashed. The respondent Commission is directed
to pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh, expeditiously, in accordance
with law.

Needless to say that this Court has not interfered with the order dated
03.08.2026 cancelling candidature of the petitioner on the ground of not
having requisite licence at the relevant point of time.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

No order as to costs.
September 9, 2026
DS
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
DIGAMBER SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…