The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ court should ordinarily not determine a person's eligibility for public office on disputed or unverified facts without first seeking a counter-affidavit. A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary partly allowed a special appeal filed by Ashok Kumar, challenging the appointment of an officer to officiating charge of Chief Town and Country Planner in Uttar Pradesh.
Background
Ashok Kumar, an Executive Engineer in the Department of Town and Country Planning, challenged the Uttar Pradesh government's November 4, 2025, order assigning officiating charge of Chief Town and Country Planner to respondent no. 4.
The dispute concerned the educational qualifications prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Town and Country Planning Service Rules, 1987. Appendix B requires a degree or postgraduate diploma in Town and Country Planning from a recognised institution for promotion to Senior Planner.
Kumar relied on his Associateship Examination from the Institute of Town Planners, India, and an All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) clarification recognising it as equivalent to a Master's Degree in Planning.
The Single Judge dismissed his challenge to the officiating appointment on December 9, 2025, while directing the authorities to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee for substantive recruitment to the Senior Planner post within six months.
The Division Bench found that the earlier decision had accepted the State's oral submission that respondent no. 4 possessed the prescribed qualification without independently verifying the relevant documents. The officer actually held a Master's Degree in Urban Development Planning from Barkatullah University, raising a question about compliance with the specific qualification requirements.
Explaining when a writ petition may be decided without a counter-affidavit, the Bench stated:
“However, where the resolution of the controversy turns upon disputed or unverified facts, particularly facts going to the eligibility of a third party whose interest is directly affected by the decision, the Court ought ordinarily to have the benefit of a counter-affidavit before recording a finding of fact adverse to a party who has had no opportunity to place his version on record.”
The Bench further noted that the appellant had not received an adequate opportunity to challenge the factual basis of the earlier decision. It emphasised the importance of examining documentary evidence before deciding eligibility under statutory service rules.
The Court also clarified that the question of equivalence between qualifications and the parties' competing claims remained open for determination. It held:
“In the considered view of this Court, it would be wholly incongruous for the very rigour applied to the appellant's qualification to be relaxed, in the same judgment, into an unverified oral acceptance where respondent no. 4's qualification was concerned.”
Allowing the special appeal in part, the High Court set aside the Single Judge's order insofar as it rejected Kumar's challenge to the officiating appointment and his request for consideration for the charge. It restored those issues for fresh consideration after the respondents file counter-affidavits within three weeks, with Kumar permitted to file a rejoinder within the following week.
The direction to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee within six months remained undisturbed. The existing officiating arrangement will continue until the writ petition is reconsidered, subject to further orders.
Case Details
Case Title: Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others
Case Number: Special Appeal No. 20 of 2026
Judge: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
Decision Date: October 28, 2026
