Allahabad High Court
RAMANUJ PANDEYversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court held that the rejection was lawful because the petitioner did not possess the essential driving licence on the prescribed date, and no illegality was found.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramanuj Pandey, filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission's order rejecting his candidature for the post of Regional Inspector (Technical) and a mandamus directing the commission to allow him to sit for the practical examination. The advertisement for the post required candidates to possess a valid heavy‑goods‑vehicle driving licence on the last date of filing of the application (3 December 2020). The petitioner did not have such a licence on that date; he had applied for it but it was delayed owing to the COVID‑19 pandemic. The respondents contended that essential qualifications must be held at the date of filing and cannot be satisfied thereafter. The court held that there was no illegality in rejecting the petitioner's candidature as the required qualification was absent on the prescribed date, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for lack of a required heavy‑vehicle driving licence on the last date of filing is illegal.
- Whether the court can issue a mandamus directing the commission to permit the petitioner to appear in the practical examination despite the alleged deficiency.
- Whether essential qualifications stipulated in a public service advertisement must be possessed at the date of application and cannot be satisfied thereafter.
Subjects
- Public Service Commission
- Eligibility
- Driving licence
- Certiorari
- Mandamus
- Practical examination
- COVID‑19 pandemic
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14649 of 2026
Ramanuj Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vimal Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mahendra Narain Singh
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Avneesh Tripathi, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed for the following relief:
"a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 03.08.2026 and 25.08.2026 in regard to the
petitioner passed by Deputy Secretary Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission, at Prayagraj (Respondent No. 4 herein), thereby rejected
the candidature of the petitioner in illegal manner (annexure No. 1 & 2 to
the writ petition);
b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to permit the petitioner for
participate in the Practical examination which scheduled to be conducted
from 07.09.2026 to 14.09.2026, in which according to petitioner's roll
number-003832, the date of the examination of the petitioner will be
12.09.2026 for the post of Regional Inspector (Technical) in regard to
Regional Inspector (Technical) Examination-2020 bearing number-
44/01/E-4/R.I. (Tech) 2020/2021-22 (annexure No. 3 to this writ
petition)."
3. The advertisement prescribed as one of the essential qualification that
the applicant must possess a driving license authorizing him to drive
heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle. The last date of
submission of form was 03.12.2020. In the present case, the petitioner did
WRIA No. 14649 of 2026
2
not possess the driving license as required by the advertisement on the last
date of filling up the form. The petitioner has only applied for the heavy
vehicle driving license and according to the petitioner, the same was not
issued to him because of Covid pandemic situation.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that essential
qualification must have to be possessed on the last date of submission of
form and any qualification possessed thereafter, cannot be considered.
5. In view of the above, this Court do not find any illegality in rejecting
the application of the petitioner as admittedly the petitioner has possessed
the essential qualification after the last date of submission of form.
6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 11, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…