# Akhilesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 327
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-25
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 2010 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhilesh-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47055
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Fair Price Shop - Reservation criteria -
G.O. dated 05.08.2019 - challenge to Sub
Clauses (1) & (2) of Clause (II) - Sub
Clause (1) of Clause (II) provide cut of
date for identification of fair price shop at
Block level for reservation - cut off date so
provided neither suffer from any invalidity
nor it violates any of the fundamental
rights of the petitioners - Sub Clause(2) of
Clause (II) provides that in future if a
shop has been identified for reserved
category, falls vacant, then its license
shall be settled in that category - this
clause also does not violate Article 14 and
Article 15 of the Constitution of India -
G.O. protects the existing licensees - it
provides that licenses of the existing
licensees shall not be disturbed/cancelled
& as and when a shop fall vacant then it
shall be governed by the reservation
policy under the Government order -
challenge to both clause rejected.
Dismissed. (E-4)

## Text

6 All. Akhilesh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
327
office
under
the
State.
The
word
"employment" being wider, there is no
dispute that it takes within its fold, the
aspect of promotions to posts above the
stage of initial level of recruitment. Article
16(1)
provides
to
every
employee
otherwise eligible for promotion or who
comes within the zone of consideration, a
fundamental right to be "considered" for
promotion. Equal opportunity here means
the right to be "considered" for promotion.
If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone
criteria but is not considered for promotion,
then there will be a clear infraction of his
fundamental right to be "considered" for
promotion, which is his personal right.

93. In view of foregoing discussion, I
do not find any illegality in the order dated
25.07.2019
whereby
requisition
dated
23.06.2016
and
advertisement
dated
05.07.2016
have
been
withdrawn.
Consequently, writ petitions of Category -
II & III viz. Writ Petition Nos. 24163 (SS)
of 2019, 24568 (SS) of 2019, 8430 (SS)
2019, 31120 (SS) of 2019, 34847 (SS) of
2019, 5246 (SS) of 2019, 33850 (SS) of
2019, 1227 (SS) of 2020, 2346 (SS) of
2020, 1930 (SS) of 2020, 3920 (SS) of
2020, 4809 (SS) of 2020, 13450 (SS) of
2020, 2283 (SS) of 2020, 5096 (SS) of
2020, 18174 (SS) of 2020, 19826 (SS) of
2020 & 612 (SS) of 2021 are dismissed.

Writ petitions of Category - I viz. Writ
Petition Nos. 3522 (SS) of 2018, 5117 (SS)
of 2018, 29564 (SS) of 2018, 22992 (SS) of
2018, 19124 (SS) of 2018 & 14474 (SS) of
2018 are disposed of with direction to the
respondents to consider the petitioners
thereof for promotion on the post of Senior
Clerk/Assistant Treasury Accountant in
accordance with 1978 Rules as amended
from time to time.
----------
(2021)06ILR A327
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ-C No. 2010 of 2020

Akhilesh Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rishi Kant Rai, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Fair Price Shop - Reservation criteria -
G.O. dated 05.08.2019 - challenge to Sub
Clauses (1) & (2) of Clause (II) - Sub
Clause (1) of Clause (II) provide cut of
date for identification of fair price shop at
Block level for reservation - cut off date so
provided neither suffer from any invalidity
nor it violates any of the fundamental
rights of the petitioners - Sub Clause(2) of
Clause (II) provides that in future if a
shop has been identified for reserved
category, falls vacant, then its license
shall be settled in that category - this
clause also does not violate Article 14 and
Article 15 of the Constitution of India -
G.O. protects the existing licensees - it
provides that licenses of the existing
licensees shall not be disturbed/cancelled
& as and when a shop fall vacant then it
shall be governed by the reservation
policy under the Government order -
challenge to both clause rejected.
Dismissed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,
J.)
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Rishi Kant Rai, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
standing counsel for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief:-

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 13.11.2019, passed
by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No.6).

(ii) Issue writ, order or direction
declaring the Clause-II (1) & (2) of the
Govt. Order dated 05.08.2021 as Ultra
Vires against the constitutional provisions
and Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution
of India as well as against the law laid
down by the Constitutional Bench in Indra
Sawhney (Supra) Case.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.2 to allocate the Fair Price
Shop of Village Gulriya in favour of
general category candidate.

(iv) Issue any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to which the petitioner
be found entitled under the facts and
circumstances of the case.

(v) Award costs in favour of the
petitioner."

3. Briefly states facts to the present
case are that the petitioner claims to be
resident of Village Gulriya Kohar Gaddi,
Block Nebua Naurangiya, Tehsil Khadda,
District Kushinagar. Earlier the aforesaid
fair price shop license was held by a person
belonging to unreserved category. On
cancellation of his license of the fair price
shop by order dated 26.07.2019, the
aforesaid fair price shop fell vacant.
Applying
the
reservation
criteria
as
provided under the Government Order
No.6/2019/1358/29-6-2019-162-Sa/2001
dated 05.08.2019, the Sub Divisional
Officer,
Tehsil
Khadda,
District
Kushinagar, vide impugned order dated
13.11.2019,
directed
the
Block
Development
Officer,
Block
Nebua
Naurangiya, Kushinagar to apply the
reservation in fair price shop licenses, as
per the aforesaid Government Order dated
05.08.2019 and accordingly to proceed for
selection of a fair price shop licensee of
Village Panchayat Gulriya under the
category of Scheduled Caste. Aggrieved
with the reservation of the fair price shop in
question i.e. Village Panchayat Gulriya, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition,
praying for the reliefs aforequoted.

Submissions:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that presently as per the letter of
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil
Khadda,
District
Kushinagar
dated
29.07.2019, there are 92 fair price shops,
out of which 25 licenses are held by the
persons
belonging
to
schedule
caste/schedule tribe and 50 licenses are
held by the persons belonging to OBC
category. Thus out of total 92 fair price
shop 75 shops are being run by persons of
reserved category and, therefore, the
reservation as has been provided under the
Government
Order
dated
05.08.2019
already stands achieved. Consequently
reservation applied under the impugned
Clauses of the Government Order dated
05.08.2019 for reservation of the fair price
shop "Gulriya", violates the Rules of
Reservation, in as much as it exceed to
permissible limit. He therefore, submits
that the impugned Government Order to the
extent of Clause-II (1) & (2) deserves to be
declared Ultra Vires, to Articles 14 and 15
of the Constitution of India and the
principles of law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
6 All. Akhilesh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
329
Court in Indra Sawhney Case, 1992
Suppl. (3) SCC 217.

5. Learned standing counsel submits
that the cut of date for the purposes of the
reservation has been provided in the
Government Order dated 05.08.2019 as the
year 2015 and on that basis identification of
the reserved fair price shop has been made.
He further submits that before applicability
of
reservation
under
the
impugned
Government Order dated 05.08.2019, those
who were continuing with their licenses,
have not been disturbed, and reservation for
license of fair price shop either under the
reserved category or under the unreserved
category shall be applied with respect to a
particular shop as and when it becomes
vacant. Since the shop of Village Panchayat
Gulriya fell under the reserved category of
scheduled caste and, therefore, when it
became vacant on 26.07.2019, the said
shop was notified for grant of license under
the reserved category. Referring to various
paragraphs
of
the
counter
affidavit,
learned standing counsel further submits
that the percentage of reservation made
under
the
Government
Order
dated
05.08.2019,
neither
exceeds
the
permissible limit of 50% nor it is the case
of the petitioner that the fair price shop
reserved under the aforesaid Government
Order exceeds 50%. To support his
submissions he also invited attention of
this Court to the copy of the minutes of the
meeting
dated
30.09.2019,
filed
as
annexure no.1, to the counter affidavit;
with which a chart has been enclosed
containing details of shops and reservation
in terms of Government Order dated
05.08.2019 are mentioned.

Discussions and findings

6. We have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties.

7. Before we proceed to consider the
rival submissions of learned counsel for the
parties,
it
would
be
appropriate
to
reproduce the impugned portions, Clauses I
and II of the aforesaid Government Order
dated 05.08.2019, as under:-

"(I) आिक्षण व्यवस्था का चनर्ाािण-

1- उचित दि की दुकानों के आवंटन/ियन
हेतु चनम्नानुसाि वचटाकल आिक्षण व्यवस्था
अनुमन्य होगी:-

(क) अनुसूचित जाचत - 21 प्रचतशत

(ख) अनुसूचित जनजाचत - 02 प्रचतशत

(ग) अन्य चपछडे वगा - 27 प्रचतशत

(घ) आचथाक रुप से ऐसे कमजोि वगा जो, -
10 प्रचतशत

अनुसूचित जाचत अनुसूचित जनजाचत तथा

चपछडे वगों के चलए आिक्षण की आिक्षण
की

वतामान व्यवस्था से आच्छाचदत नहीं है,

हेतु (काचमाक चवभाग के पत्र सं0-1/2019/4

/1/2002/क-2/19टीसी-11, चदनांक 18-22019

में चनचहत शतों एवं व्यवस्था के अनुसाि)

2- उपयुाक्तानुसाि आिचक्षत एवं अनािचक्षत
श्रेचणयों में चनम्नचलखखत होरिजेन्टल आिक्षण भी
अनुमन्य होगा:-

(क) संिंचर्त श्रेणी की मचहलाओं को - 20
प्रचतशत

(ख) संिंचर्त श्रेणी के लडाई में मािे गये
सैचनक के परिवाि के - 05 प्रचतशत

सदस्य, कताव्य चनवाहन के दौिान मािे गये
केन्द्रीय सशस्त्र

पुचलस िलों के परिवाि के सदस्य, लडाई में
घायल हुए
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

सैचनक अथवा उसके परिवाि के सदस्य,
कताव्य चनवाहन

के दौिान घायल केन्द्रीय सशस्त्र पुचलस िलों
के सदस्य अथवा

उसके परिवाि के सदस्य तथा भूतपूवा
सैचनक।

(ग) संिंचर्त श्रेणी के स्वतंत्रता संग्राम
सेनानी, उनकी पत्नी तथा - 05 प्रचतशत

स्वतंत्रता संग्राम सेनानी के आचश्रत के रुप में
पुत्र औि पुत्री तथा पौत्र

(पुत्र का पुत्र एवं पुत्री का पुत्र) औि पौत्री (पुत्र
की पुत्री एवं पुत्री की पुत्री)

(चववाचहत अथवा अचववाचहत)

(घ) सम्बखित श्रेणी के चवकलांग व्यखक्तयों
के चलए

दृचिहीनता या कमदृचि - 01 प्रचतशत

श्रवण ह्रास - 01 प्रचतशत

िलन
चिया
सम्बिी
चनिःशक्ता
या
प्रमखस्तष्कीय अंगघात - 01 प्रचतशत

कुल 03 प्रचतशत

3- जनपद में ग्रामीण क्षेत्र हेतु स्वीकृत
समस्त उचित दि दुकानों (कायाित एवं रिक्त) की
ब्लाकवाि गणना किते हुये उनके आिक्षण का
चिन्हॉकन
उपयुाक्त
प्रस्तिों
में
वचणात
व्यवस्थानुसाि चकया जायेगा, पिन्तु उक्त आिक्षण
प्रचतशत को पूणा किने के चलए वतामान में िल
िही दुकानों को चनिस्त नहीं चकया जायेगा।
वतामान में रिक्त एवं यचद कोई दुकान चकसी
कािणवश चनिस्त होती है, ति उस पि नई
चनयुखक्त के समय इस शासनादेश के अनुसाि
आिक्षण पूणा किने की कायावाही की जायेगी।

(II) आरक्षण की गणना हेतु प्रक्रिया का
क्रनर्ाारणः-

(1) क्रिकास खण्ड को एक यूक्रनट मानते
हुए तहसील स्तरीय सक्रमक्रत द्वारा आरक्षण
की गणना की जायेगी। प्रत्येक क्रिकास खण्ड
में कुल स्वीकृत दुकानोों में से आरक्रक्षत श्रेणी
के क्रिन्हॉकन हेतु पोंिायती राज क्रिभाग, उत्तर
प्रदेश द्वारा िर्ा 2015 में ग्राम सभा की
जनसोंख्या के प्रक्रतशत के आर्ार पर, ग्राम
प्रर्ान के पदोों में लागू आरक्षण व्यिस्था की
भााँक्रत दुकानोों को क्रिन्हन्हत ि आरक्रक्षत क्रकया
जायेगा। ग्रामीण क्षेत्ोों में उक्रित दर दुकानोों के
आरक्षण के क्रिन्हॉकन का यही मुख्य आर्ार
होगा।

(2) भचवष्य में उक्तानुसाि आिचक्षत श्रेणी
के अन्तगात चिखन्हत दुकाने जैसे-जैसे रिक्त होती
जायेगी, उनका आवंटन उसी श्रेणी के अभ्यचथायों
को चकया जायेगा।

(3) एक से अचर्क दुकानों की ग्राम सभा में
पहली दुकान को उपिोक्तानुसाि चनर्ाारित
प्रचिया के अनुसाि आिचक्षत चकया जायेगा। इस
ग्राम सभा की शेष दुकानों की श्रेणी के सम्बि
में, सम्बखित चवकास खण्ड में, दुकानों में
आिक्षण की खस्थत का संज्ञान लेते हुये, ग्राम सभा
की जनसंख्या के प्रचतशत के आर्ाि पि, अखन्तम
चनणाय तहसील स्तिीय ियन सचमचत द्वािा चलया
जायेगा। यह ध्यान िखा जायेगा चक सम्बखित
ब्लॉक में दुकानों के आिक्षण का प्रचतशत पूणा
िहे।

(4) अनािचक्षत ग्रामसभाओं हेतु चकसी भी
वगा का अभ्यथी चनर्ाारित औपिारिकताओं को
पूणा किके आवेदन कि सकता है।

(5) चवकास खण्ड में कुल स्वीकृत दुकानों
के सापेक्ष आिक्षणवाि उचित दि दुकानों का
चिन्हॉकन तो कि चलया जायेगा, पिन्तु वतामान में
कायाित चकसी भी उचित दि दुकान को इस
चिन्हॉकन के परिप्रेक्ष्य में चनिस्त नहीं चकया
जायेगा।

(6) ग्रामीण क्षेत्र में िाशन की दुकानों के
आवंटन की कायावाही चनम्नानुसाि गचित
तहसील स्तिीय सचमचत द्वािा की जायेगीिः-

(क) उप चजलाचर्कािी - अध्यक्ष

(ख) संिंचर्त खण्ड चवकास अचर्कािी -
सदस्य

(ग) अनुसूचित जाचत/जनजाचत एवं चपछडी
- सदस्य
6 All. Akhilesh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
331

जाचत
का
एक-एक
अचर्कािी
जो
चजलाचर्कािी

द्वािा नाचमत चकया जाये (यचद उपयुाक्त
अचर्कारियों

में कोई अचर्कािी इस वगा का हो तो अलग
से नामांकन

किने की आवश्यकता नहीं होगी)

(घ)
क्षेत्रीय
खाद्य
अचर्कािी
-
सदस्य/संयोजक

(7) होरिजेन्टल आिक्षण के अन्तगात कुल
स्वीकृत दुकानों के सापेक्ष ग्राम सभाओं का
चिन्हांकन चनर्ाारित प्रचतशत तक लाटिी पद्वचत
के आर्ाि पि ही चकया जायेगा। होरिजेण्टल
आिक्षण के अनुसाि प्रत्येक श्रेणी के चलए
िमवाि एक-एक पिी ति तक चनकाली जायेगी,
जि तक चनर्ाारित होरिजेण्टल आिक्षण पूणा नहीं
हो जाता।

(8) आिक्षण की गणना की कायावाही की
वीचियो रिकाचििंग किायी जायेगी तथा इसे
संिचक्षत िखा जायेगा।

(9) उपयुाक्तानुसाि चिन्हांचकत वचटाकल एवं
होरिजेन्टल आिक्षण का ग्राम सभावाि मास्टि
िचजस्टि िनाया जायेगा, चजसकी एक प्रचत चजला
पूचता कायाालय एवं एक प्रचत तहसील स्तिीय उप
चजलाचर्कािी कायाालय में सुिचक्षत िखी जायेगी।
सम्बखित तहसील के क्षेत्रीय खाद्य अचर्कािी का
यह दाचयत्व होगा चक वह उक्त मास्टि आिक्षण
िचजस्टि दोनों कायाालयों में उपलब्ध किायें।

(10) होरिजेन्टल आिक्षण के अन्तगात यचद
सम्बखित श्रेणी का कोई आवेदक ग्राम सभा में
उपलब्ध न हो तो चजलाचर्कािी को छूट होगी चक
वह होरिजेन्टल आिक्षण श्रेणी के अन्तगात उस
स्थान को चकसी अन्य श्रेणी के चलए चिन्हॉचकत
कि दें एवं चजस श्रेणी का अभ्यथी उपलब्ध नहीं
था, उस श्रेणी के चलए चकसी अन्य स्थान को
आवंचटत कि दें, चजससे हॉरिजेण्टल आिक्षण
पूणा हो सके।

(11) प्रस्ति-(I) 2 (ग) के अन्तगात पात्र
अभ्यथी उपलब्ध न होने की खस्थचत में उस रिखक्त
को सवाप्रथम (I) 2 (ख) के अभ्यथी से भिने का
प्रयास चकया जायेगा।"

8. The percentage of reservation as
provided under Clause (I) of the impugned
Government Order is neither in dispute nor
under challenge. Only Sub Clauses (1) and
(2) of Clause (II) are impugned in the
present writ petition. Sub Clause (3) of
Clause (I) of the aforesaid Government
Order
provides
the
procedure
for
identification of fair price shop for
reservation. It further provides that to
achieve the reservation, license/existing
licenses of fair price shop shall not be
cancelled and in the event any fair price
shop fall vacant or its license is cancelled
then reservation shall be applied in respect
thereof, as per the Government Order. The
undisputed chart as appended with the
minutes of the meeting dated 30.09.2019
also reflect that the reservation of fair price
shop at Block Level does not exceed 50%
of the total number of the fair price shops.
Sub Clause (1) of Clause (II) provided a cut
of date for identification of fair price shop
at Block level for reservation. The cut of
date so provided has neither been shown to
us to be suffering from any invalidity nor it
violates any of the fundamental rights of
the
petitioners
guaranteed
under
the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the
challenge to Sub Clause(1) of Clause (II),
deserves rejection and is hereby rejected.

9. Sub Clause(2) of Clause (II)
provides that in future if a shop has been
identified for reserved category, falls
vacant, then its license shall be settled in
that category. This clause also does not
violate Article 14 and Article 15 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, challenge
the aforesaid Sub Clause(2) of Clause (II)
also deserves rejection and is hereby
rejected.
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner on the basis of number of
existing licenses being held by the persons
either belonging to the OBC category or
SC/ST category, is totally meritless. The
existing fair price shop licensees are
running their shops from a long period
much prior to the Government Order dated
05.08.2019. The Government Order itself
protects the existing licensees. It provides
that licenses of the existing licensees shall
not be disturbed/cancelled and as and when
a shop fall vacant then it shall be governed
by the reservation policy under the
Government order. For example, if a shop
has been identified in terms of the
Government Order dated 05.08.2019, to be
under unreserved category but presently it
is being held by a person belonging to a
reserved category then if such a shop fall
vacant in future then it shall fall under the
unreserved category. Similarly, if the
license of an existing shop although fall
under the reserved category but presently
license thereof is being held by a person
belonging to unreserved category, then if in
future such a shop fall vacant then its
license shall be settled under the reserved
category. Thus, we do not find any force in
the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner.

11. For all the reasons aforestated we
find that the impugned Clauses of the
Government Order dated 05.08.2019 do not
suffer from any invalidity. The impugned
order dated 13.11.2019 is in terms of the
Government Order. Therefore, it also does
not suffer from any illegality.

12. The writ petition has no merits.
Therefore,
it
is
hereby
dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2021)06ILR A332
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ-C No. 2045 of 2020

Awadhesh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
R.B.I., through Reg. Director, Kanpur &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Adarsh Singh, Sri Indra Raj Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sanjai Singh

Banking Laws
- Customer Protection
Limiting
Liability
of
Customers
in
Unauthorized
Electronic
Banking
Transactions - Clause nos. 5, 6, 9 - On
receipt of report of an unauthorised
transaction from the customer, banks
must take immediate steps to prevent
further unauthorised transactions in the
account - Zero Liability of a Customer - A
customer's entitlement to zero liability
arise where the unauthorised transaction
occurs on account of Contributory fraud/
negligence/ deficiency on the part of the
bank (Para 8)

On 21.02.2019 petitioner shared his OTP (One
Time Password) with stranger - due to sharing
of OTP Rs. 1.00,000/- was withdrawn from the
account of the petitioner - petitioner lodged a
complaint in writing before the bank on
21.02.2019 requesting to freeze his bank
account - Bank could not freeze the Bank
Account which resulted in illegal withdrawal in
four transactions on 22.02.2019 and another in
five transaction on 23.02.2019 - Held - Bank
was to ensure immediate response and to
freeze the Bank Account after the petitioner
reported
unauthorized
transaction
on