Allahabad High Court Says Writ Eligibility Findings Cannot Rest on Unverified Oral Submissions

What the appellate bench changed

Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary partly set aside a single-judge judgment concerning the officiating charge of Chief Town and Country Planner in Uttar Pradesh. The appellate bench found that a crucial factual conclusion about the officer holding the charge had been accepted on an oral statement from counsel without a counter-affidavit or supporting certificate. It restored the affected prayers in the writ petition for fresh consideration. This was a procedural correction, not a final declaration that either claimant is eligible for the post.

The bench ordered counter-affidavits within three weeks and a rejoinder within one week thereafter. It left undisturbed an earlier direction to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee and allowed the existing officiating arrangement to continue subject to the outcome, without creating any equity in favour of its holder. Because the appellant is due to retire on 31 December 2026, the bench requested disposal of the remanded proceedings preferably within two months.

The disputed appointment

Ashok Kumar, an Executive Engineer in the Department of Town and Country Planning, challenged an order dated 4 November 2025 assigning officiating charge to an Architect Planner. The controversy involved the Uttar Pradesh Town and Country Planning Service Rules, 1987, including Appendix B and the qualifications prescribed for promotion from Senior Planner. The single judge had dismissed the challenge in December 2025, reasoning in part that equivalence could not be read into a qualification when the rules did not provide for it.

In appeal, the appellant argued that the same strict approach had not been applied to the officer given charge. A certificate produced later referred to a Master’s Degree in Urban Development Planning from Barkatullah University, raising the question whether that document met the precise requirement under the rules. The appellate bench did not decide that equivalence question finally. Instead, it found that the underlying factual premise should be tested on evidence before the writ court reaches a conclusion affecting the parties.

Why pleadings and evidence matter

The judgment emphasises that a court should ordinarily call for a counter-affidavit where disputed or unverified facts are decisive, particularly when they concern a third party’s eligibility. Oral submissions help counsel explain a case, but they cannot automatically replace a verifiable factual record. A party must have a meaningful chance to see the material relied upon and answer it. This is especially important where the court’s conclusion could affect an existing appointment or an officer’s service prospects.

The bench referred to Supreme Court decisions on examining eligibility against prescribed qualifications, including Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Bedanga Talukdar. The principle is not that every writ petition requires a full trial or elaborate oral evidence. Rather, where a material fact is disputed and the court intends to make an adverse determination, the record should be sufficiently reliable and the affected person should have an opportunity to respond.

What happens next

The restored portion of the writ petition returns to the single judge for examination on the affidavits and documents. The Departmental Promotion Committee direction survives, and the temporary charge continues only subject to the final outcome. Neither the appeal’s partial success nor the continuing arrangement resolves the substantive qualification dispute. The precise service rules and actual certificates must be examined together, rather than assumed from either party’s description.

The ruling has wider significance for public employment disputes. It cautions against deciding qualification, seniority or eligibility questions from untested assertions, particularly where a third party has not been heard. The practical value lies in preserving procedural fairness while keeping urgent service matters moving. The immediate operative steps are the affidavit timetable and expedited reconsideration, not the appointment of a particular candidate.