Allahabad High Court

GYAN LATA PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: ANISH KUMAR GUPTA

Holding

The amendment introducing physical standards for female candidates is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively to appointments made under earlier advertisements; consequently, the petitioner’s appointment is to be treated as regular from the date of joining.

Summary

The petitioner, Gyan Lata Pal, was selected for the post of Deputy Jailor under a 2008 advertisement that did not prescribe physical standards for female candidates. After her appointment in July 2015, the State invoked physical standards introduced by a 2014 amendment to the U.P. Prisoner Administration and Reforms Service Rules, denying her regular appointment, seniority, and promotional benefits. The petitioner contended that the amendment was prospective and could not be applied retrospectively. The State conceded that the original rules lacked female physical criteria but argued the amendment should apply. The Court examined the timing of the advertisement, the amendment's prospective clause, and the principle against retrospective application of new standards. It held that the 2014 amendment could not be applied to the petitioner’s case and ordered her appointment to be treated as regular from 20‑07‑2015 with all consequential benefits. The Court directed the respondents to implement the order within eight weeks.

Issues considered

Can physical fitness standards introduced by a 2014 amendment to the U.P. Prisoner Administration and Reforms Service Rules be applied retrospectively to a candidate selected under a 2008 advertisement?
Whether the denial of regular appointment, seniority and promotional benefits to the petitioner violates the service rules applicable at the time of her selection?
Is the petitioner entitled to be treated as a regularly appointed Deputy Jailor from the date of joining with all associated benefits?

Subjects

physical standards
retrospective application
service rules
appointment
seniority
promotion
gender discrimination
Uttar Pradesh Prison Service

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 31077 of 2015

Gyan Lata Pal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Goyal, Nikhil Mishra,
Siddharth Singhal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Nisheeth Yadav

Connected with

WRIT - A No. - 21015 of 2024

Gyan Lata Pal And 7 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 21 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Pande (Senior Adv.), Vishakha
Pande, Yashaswin Venugopal Bajpai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avneesh Tripathi, Amit Shukla, C.S.C.,
M.N. Singh
______________________________________________________________________________
AND

WRIT - A No. - 10882 of 2025

Gyan Lata Pal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nikhil Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 34

(SN.7)
WRIA No. 31077 of 2015
2

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Tanishk Goyal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nikhil Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ A No. 31077 of 2015 as well as
in Writ A No. 10882 of 2025 and Ms. Vishakha Pande in Writ A No.
21015 of 2024 and Sri Dilip Kumar Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State as well as Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned
counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission.

2. All the three petitions are filed by the petitioner and relates to the same
controversy with regard to the physical standards later prescribed after the
advertisement and selection of the petitioner for the post of Deputy Jailor,
which was opted by the petitioner and pursuant to the interim order dated
26.05.2015, she was given appointment vide appointment letter dated
08.07.2015 provisionally and consequent thereto she had joined on
20.07.2015 on the post of Deputy Jailor and subsequent petitions are filed
by the petitioner raising the grievance with regard to her seniority as well
as non-grant of the promotional benefits to the petitioner. The reliefs in
the other two petitions would be dependent upon the reliefs granted in the
leading writ petition being Writ A No. 31077 of 2015. In such view of the
matter, all the three petitions which are connected, have been heard
together and are being decided together by this common order.

3. In the aforesaid leading petition, on 26.05.2015, this Court passed the
following order:

"Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Standing counsel appears for respondents no. 1 and 2.
Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appears for respondent no. 3.

An advertisement was issued by the U.P. Public Service
Commission on 9th August 2008 inter alia inviting applications
for appointment on the post of Deputy Jailer.

Apart from the other eligibility conditions, the advertisement
provided that the posts for which physical fitness of the
candidates is required to be examined like the post of Jailer, it
WRIA No. 31077 of 2015
3

shall be adjudged as per the concerned service Rules.

The petitioner qualified the written examination and interview
but after the physical test she has been ousted on the ground
that she does not fulfill the minimum physical criteria of height
and weight as prescribed by the Rules.

The submission of Sri Goyal is that at the time of issuance of
advertisement Rule 13(2) of the relevant U.P. Prisoner
Administration and Reforms Executive Sub-ordinate (Non-
Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980 provided for physical criteria
for male candidates only. The said Rules were completely silent
with regard to any physical criteria in relation to female
candidates. The said Rules were amended in June 2014 and
physical criteria for female candidates was also introduced
therein but that would not be applicable in the case of the
petitioner. The eligibility of the petitioner has to be seen on the
date of the advertisement. The amended Rules are only
prospective in nature and can not be applied to the selection
process which had commenced earlier.

Learned Standing counsel as well as the counsel for the U.P.
Public Service Commission are directed to file counter
affidavit within a month. Two weeks thereafter are allowed to
the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

List for admission/final disposal after six weeks.

In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 27th
February 2015 passed by the Additional Director General
(Administration)Jail Administration Evan Reforms Services,
Uttar Pradesh shall remain stayed and respondents no. 1and 2
are at liberty to consider the petitioner for appointment and
not to ignore her candidature on the ground of physical fitness
as per the amended Rules. The appointment of the petitioner, if
any, would be provisional and subject to decision of this
WRIA No. 31077 of 2015
4

Court."

4. The briefly stated facts of the case are that pursuant to the
advertisement issued on 09.08.2008, being Combined Lower Subordinate
Services Special Selection Examination as well as Combined Lower
Subordinate Services General Selection Examination, 2008. The
petitioner herein had applied and qualified the preliminary examination,
mains examination as well as the interview and she was declared qualified
and selected. However, at the time of appointment the options were asked
from the petitioner with regard to various posts available to be filled up
from the selected candidates. The petitioner has given two options on
12.12.2013, one for the post of Legal Assistant (Housing and Urban
Planning Department) and another for Deputy Jailor (Jail Administration
and Reform Services). Accordingly, an offer of appointment was given to
the petitioner for the post of Deputy Jailor as OBC female candidate in
the Jail Administration and Reforms Services Department as after
considering the options given by the petitioner.

5. It is relevant to take note of the fact that U.P. Prison Administration
and Reforms Executive Subordinate (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980
at the time of advertisement as well as at the time of the filling up of the
options by the petitioner did not prescribe any physical standards for the
female candidates for the post of Deputy Jailor.

6. From the perusal of the Rule 13(2) of Rules, 1980, which was existing
at the time of the options filled by the petitioner, prescribes only the
physical standards for the male candidates. Later, the said rules were
amended on 27.06.2014, which prescribed the physical standards for the
female candidates as well i.e. Height 152 CM and Weight 45 to 58 KG.
Thereafter, on 08.08.2014, the Headquarter of the Prison Administration
and Reform Services asked a report from CMO, Allahabad with regard to
the physical standards of the petitioner, wherein it was reported by the
CMO concerned that petitioner's height is 150 cm and weight is 70 kg.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid report of the CMO, the petitioner was
denied appointment to the post of Deputy Jailor. Being aggrieved the
instant lead writ petition was filed by the petitioner and this Court while
WRIA No. 31077 of 2015
5

taking a prima facie view that since the unamended rules of 1980 did not
provide any physical standards for the female candidates and the amended
rules as amended on 27.06.2014 did not prescribes that the said
amendment will apply retrospectively, has passed an interim order on
26.05.2015, to grant the appointment to the petitioner provisionally to the
post of Deputy Jailor. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner is working as
Deputy Jailor, however, during the pendency of the instant petition since
the petitioner has not been given the seniority or the promotions as per
rules, she has filed two other writ petitions claiming seniority as well as
the promotion as per rules.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, since
the physical standards later prescribed for the female candidates after
amendment in the rules, which do not apply retrospectively cannot be
made applicable in case of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents
could not have denied the regular appointment to the petitioner from its
inception and thus her appointment should be treated as a regular
appointment from the date of her joining i.e., 20.07.2015 and all
consequential benefits be granted to the petitioner in accordance with
rules.

9. Per contra Sri Dileep Kumar Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State admits that the physical standards were not
prescribed in the original rules and the standards, which were provided in
unamended Rule 13(2) were applicable only to the male candidates,
which cannot be applied in the case of the female candidates. To fill up
the gap, later vide amendment in the year 2014 the physical standards has
been prescribed for the female candidates as well and by the time the
petitioner was selected, those rules came into existence, therefore, the
physical standards in accordance with the amended rules were asked for
by the respondents. However, he is not in a position to dispute that the
aforesaid amended rule could not be applied in the instant case, which
came into effect from 27.06.2014, which is provided in the amended
Rules itself.

10. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsel for
the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. It
WRIA No. 31077 of 2015
6

is undisputed in the instant case that the aforesaid 1980 Rules do not
provide for any physical standards for the female candidates for the post
of Deputy Jailor, by way of amendment in the rules on 27.06.2014, which
came into effect from 27.06.2014. The physical standards for female
candidates was also prescribed though the petitioner did not fit in the said
physical standard criteria prescribed by the amended rules. However,
since the said amendment rule cannot be applied in the case of an
advertisement, which was issued in the year, 2008, which did not
prescribe any physical standards for the female candidates and the
amended rules cannot be applied retrospectively in view of the categorical
provision in the amending Act itself that the said rule will apply only
from date of notification i.e., 27.06.2014. In such view of the matter, the
respondents cannot insist for the physical standard criteria in case of the
petitioner, which was brought after the amendment.

11. In such view of the matter, the instant petitions are allowed. The
appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 08.07.2015 and 09.07.2015
shall be treated as a regular appointment from the date of her joining i.e.,
20.07.2015, and all consequential benefits shall be granted to the
petitioner treating the petitioner as a regularly appointed from 20.07.2015.
All consequential orders and benefits shall be accorded to the petitioner in
terms of this order within a period of eight weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
September 17, 2026
Shubham Arya

Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…