# Aasif Shahdab v. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. & others - **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 233 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 1999 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aasif-shahdab-v-secretary-madhyamik-shiksha-parishad-u-p-others-39178 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 233 presence of learned counsel for the petitioner I also perused the copies and find that on comparison a person of normal prudence cannot with certainty came to the conclusion that student involved in the case has resorted to using unfair means merely similarity of certain aspects can lead to an irresistible conclusion that student /petitioner in question has resorted to using unfair means. 4. This Court time and again held that similarity of answers cannot be a ground for punishing a student on the ground of using unfair means. Ground for suspicion of using unfair means is not enough. In this context reference may be made to the following decisions:- See 1. AIR 1977 AII 132, 2. AIR 1998 SC 5, 3. 1997 (6) SCC 674, 4. AIR 1979 AII 209 (Para 11) (FB), 5. AIR 1996 AII 206, 6. 1996 (1) UPLBEC 76, 7. 1985 UBLBEC 829 (DB) and 8. 1982 Education Cases 117 (DB), 5. In view of the above, I have no hesitation to conclude that there is no material to support the conclusion of Respondent No. 1. 6. The Writ Petition succeeds with direction to Respondent- Board to release result of the Petitioner - student forthwith. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( .5,6+1$ .80$5 - 7+( +21·%/( .5,6+1$ .80$5 - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 5DP &KDQGUD 6KXNOD «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU 6KUL 5DGKH\ 6K\DP 6KUL &3 *XSWD 1999 ------ Aasif Shahdab Vs. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. & others ------ A.K. Yog, J. 1999 ------ August, 11 234 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999 6KUL 9% 8SDGK\D\ &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW 6& 6KUL 9LQRG 0LVKUD 6KUL 6XQLO $PEZDQL $UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD 2QFH WKH +LJK &RXUW UHMHFWV EDLO WKH VXERUGLQDWH FRXUW KDV QR EXVLQHVV WR JUDQW EDLO ,W LV JURVV LQGLFLSOLQH DQG WKH HQWLUH MXGLFLDO V\VWHP ZLOO EH VXEYHUWHG LI WKLV LV GRQH $GGLWLRQDO 'LVWULFW 6HVVLRQV -XGJH KDV FRPPLWWHG JURVV LQVXERUGLQDWLRQ E\ JUDQWLQJ EDLO RQFH WKH EDLO KDG EHHQ UHMHFWHG E\ WKH +LJK &RXUW ± +HOG 7KH SHWLWLRQHU DV $GGLWLRQDO 'LVWULFW DQG 6HVVLRQV -XGJH KDV FRPPLWWHG JURVV LQVXERUGLQDWLRQ E\ JUDQWLQJ EDLO RQFH WKH EDLO KDG EHHQ UHMHFWHG E\ WKH +LJK &RXUW 3DUD By the Court Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal from service dated 17.4.1997 Annexure 7 to the petition. The petitioner was Addl. District and Sessions Judge and was placed under suspention by order dated 29.11.1995 and after enquiry he was dismissed from service. The charges against the petitioner were that after the High Court rejected bail in two cases the petitioner as A.D.G. granted bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that so far as the first charge is concerned the High Court rejected the bail as not pressed. In fact in this case earlier the District and Session Judge, Sri N.S. Gahlot had rejected the bail on merits and thereafter the bail application had been moved before the High Court and this application was dismissed as not pressed. As, regards charge no. 2 the bail application had been rejected by the High Court on merits after it had earlier been rejected by the District and Sessions Judge. Thereafter the petitioner as Addl. District and Sessions Judge granted bail. 2. In our opinion, once the High Court rejects bail the subordinate court has no business to grant bail. It is gross indiscipline and the entire judicial system will be subverted if this is done. All the judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary should realise that the High Court is superior to the subordinate judiciary. Once the High Court has rejected bail no District and Sessions Judge 1999 ------ R.C. Shukla Vs. State U.P. & others ------ M. Katju, J. Krishna Kumar, J. 3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 235 or Addl. District Sessions Judge can grant bail. Thus the petitioner as (Addl. District and Sessions Judge has committed gross insubordination by granting bail once the bail had been rejected by the High Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mohan Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others 1995 J.I.C. 105 Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.2087 of 1993 decided on 14.11.1994 where the learned Single Judge Hon'ble S.K. Verma, J. has held that after the High Court rejects bail on merits the Sessions Judge can entertain the bail application and can grant it. We do not at all agree with this view. Such a view will be totally subversive of judicial discipline. After the High Court rejects bail on merits the Sessions Judge cannot grant bail. Hence we over-rule the view of Hon'ble S.K. Verma, J. 4. The petitioner has been found guilty in the enquiry report of Hon'ble A.N. Gupta, J. and the finding of guilt is a finding of fact and this court cannot interfere with findings of fact. The petition is hence dismissed. 5. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated by the Registrar of this Court to the all District and Sessions Judges and Addl. District and Sessions Judge of the State so that they may know the law on this point that once the High Court rejects bail the subordinate judiciary cannot grant bail and it will be treated as a serious misconduct if they do so. Petition Dismissed. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7( $//$+$%$' '$7( $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( $ . <2* 7+( +21·%/( $ . <2* - - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI /DOLW .XPDU *DUJ « 3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 7KH 83 %RDUG RI +LJK 6FKRRO DQG ,QWHUPHGLDWH $OODKDEDG 7KURXJK LWV 6HFUHWDU\ DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV 1999 ------ August, 21 1999 ------ R.C. Shukla Vs. State U.P. & others ------ M. Katju, J. Krishna Kumar, J.