# Arhati Association & another v. State of

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 543
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9052 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arhati-association-another-v-state-of-40170
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Act
1981,
Sec
4
(2)-
amalgamation- of two or more colleges-
State Government issued UP Ordinance
No. 4 of 2001 for such purpose- amounts
to
policy
decision-
should
not
be
interfered.

W.P. No. 34022 of 2002 XL-IIT Forum &
others Vs. State of U.P. & others and
W.P. No. 43985 of 1977 Kanpur Aloo
Arhati Association & another Vs. State of
U.P. & others

Held- Para 9 & 10

A perusal of section 4 (2) of the 1981 Act
shows that the State Government has
power to amalgamate two or more
colleges
and
transfer
students
and
teachers from one college to another.
The U.P. Ordinance no. 4 of 2001
Annexure-2 to the writ petition confers
further power for such transfer and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
544
amalgamation. Thus it cannot be said
that there is no power to issue the
impugned
Government
Order
and
Circular letter.

The impugned Government Order and
Circular amounts to policy decision and
this court should not ordinarily interfere
with such policy decisions.

## Text

2 All] Sheetala Prasad Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others
543
been referred by the learned counsel for
the petitioner having no application to the
present case are of no assistance to him.
On the other hand decisions as has been
referred by the learned counsel for the
respondents
that
in
the
event
the
disciplinary
authority
refers
to
the
findings of the enquiry officer and then
proceeds to record a reason that there is
nothing to discard the reasonings and the
findings and to disagree with the same
then it is a clear case of application of
mind and no further reiteration of all the
facts an independent reason is required. It
has been stated by the Apex Court that it
is only in those cases where the fresh
enquiry is
to be directed
or the
disciplinary authority intends to disagree
with
the
findings
then
only
the
independent reasonings are required.

10. In view of the aforesaid analysis
it is clear that petitioner has been
punished on the charge of serious lapses
on his part in discharge of duty. The
explanation given by him has not been
found to be substantiated by any material
and there being a finding on a question of
fact the court do not find any perversity or
apparent mistake in the findings and
conclusions arrived at by the enquiry
officer or the disciplinary authority and
thus petitioner is not entitled to get any
relief from this Court.

11. For the reasons recorded above
writ petition fails and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9052 of 2001

Sheetala Prasad Singh and others

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri A.K. Singh
Sri B.P. Yadav
Sri B.P. Singh
Sri R.S. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Education & Service - U.P. Homeopathy
Medical Colleges Acquisition and Misc.
Provisions
Act
1981,
Sec
4
(2)-
amalgamation- of two or more colleges-
State Government issued UP Ordinance
No. 4 of 2001 for such purpose- amounts
to
policy
decision-
should
not
be
interfered.

W.P. No. 34022 of 2002 XL-IIT Forum &
others Vs. State of U.P. & others and
W.P. No. 43985 of 1977 Kanpur Aloo
Arhati Association & another Vs. State of
U.P. & others

Held- Para 9 & 10

A perusal of section 4 (2) of the 1981 Act
shows that the State Government has
power to amalgamate two or more
colleges
and
transfer
students
and
teachers from one college to another.
The U.P. Ordinance no. 4 of 2001
Annexure-2 to the writ petition confers
further power for such transfer and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
544
amalgamation. Thus it cannot be said
that there is no power to issue the
impugned
Government
Order
and
Circular letter.

The impugned Government Order and
Circular amounts to policy decision and
this court should not ordinarily interfere
with such policy decisions.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition the
petitioner has prayed for a writ of
certiorari
to
quash
the
impugned
Government
order
dated
17.2.2001
Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the
Circular letter dated 24.2.2001 Annexure4 to the writ petition in so far as they
direct merger of Rajkiya Tilakdhari
Homeopathic Medical college, Jaunpur
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
Jaunpur
College) with Rajkiya Lal Bahadur
Shastri Homeopathic Medical College,
Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as
Allahabad College) and transfer of
students and teachers to the Allahabad
college.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties.

The Jaunpur College was a privately
managed Homeopathic Medical College.
The petitioners were appointed as lecturer
in that College when the same was under
private management. On 23.10.1981 the
State
Legislature
enacted
the
U.P.
Homeopathic
Medical
colleges
Acquisition and Misc. Provisions) Act,
1981 copy of which is Annexure-1 to the
writ petition. As a consequence , the
Rajkiya Tilakdhari Homeopathic Medical
College, Jaunpur stood provincialised and
the petitioners stood absorbed in the
service of the State Government by virtue
to section 6 of the 1981 Act.

3.

The
U.P.
Government
promulgated the U.P. Ordinance No. 4 of
2001 which was published in the U.P.
Gazette extra-ordinary dated 15.2.2001
vide annexure-2 to the writ petition . By
means of this Ordinance power has been
conferred for transfer of students, teachers
and employees from one schedule College
to another schedule college or to the
National Homeopathic Medical College,
Lucknow.
On
17.2.2001
the
State
Government issued a Government order
directing amalgamation of the Jaunpur
College with Allahabad college, and
transfer of all the teaching and non
teaching employees to the Allahabad
college except the Officer Incharge of the
Hospital, Pharmacist attached to the
outdoor and the peon. True copy of the
Government Order dated 17.2.2001 is
Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

4. It is alleged in paragraph 16 of the
writ petition that the impugned decision
of amalgamation and transfer is not based
on
any
administrative
reason
nor
prompted by financial constraints and it is
not in the public interest. It is alleged that
the impugned decision is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the constitution.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed
and we have perused the same. In
paragraph 4 of the same it is stated that
the State Government, looking to the
financial burden and shortage of funds
decided to combine and amalgamate the
two colleges, and hence it issued the
ordinance and orders of 2001.

6. In paragraph 6 and 7 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that not only
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sheetala Prasad Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others
545
the Allahabad and Jaunpur Medical
colleges have been amalgamated but
several
other
Homeopathic
Medical
Colleges have also been amalgamated.

7. We have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties. Sri Ashok Khare learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the
Government order dated 17.2.2001 while
directing the amalgamation of the Jaunpur
College. In our opinion this decision was
taken on administrative grounds and it is
not for this court to sit in appeal over such
administrative decisions. Whether the
Hospital attached to the Jaunpur College
should be transferred to Allahabad or not
is for the authorities to decide and not for
this Court. Moreover, as stated in
paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, in
the Hospital attached to the Jaunpur
College there were two departments
namely outdoor department and indoor
department.
The
indoor
patient
department has been closed down at
Jaunpur and merged with the Allahabad
College. The outdoor patient department
is still functioning at Jaunpur for which
the post of Medical Officer Incharge, a
Pharmacist and a peon have been retained
at Jaunpur. In paragraph 14 of the same it
is stated that out of 54 employees and
teachers who were posted at Jaunpur
College 46 joined at Allahabad and only
the petitioners did not join and they
obtained
exparte
interim
orders
concealing the true facts.

8. In paragraph 16 of the same it is
stated that in the year 1981 when the U.P.
Act 21 of 1981 came into force two
College which were not found upto the
mark were amalgamated with the Jaunpur
College but by lapse of time the Jaunpur
College also could not maintain the
standards, which were required and hence
it was amalgamated with the Allahabad
college.

9. A perusal of section 4 (2) of the
1981
Act
shows
that
the
State
Government has power to amalgamate
two or more colleges and transfer students
and teachers from one college to another.
The U.P. Ordinance no. 4 of 2001
Annexure-2 to the writ petition confers
further power for such transfer and
amalgamation. Thus it cannot be said that
there is no power to issue the impugned
Government Order and Circular letter.

10. The impugned Government
Order and Circular amounts to policy
decision and this court should not
ordinarily interfere with such policy
decisions.

11. Education is in Entry 25 of List
III of the VIIth schedule of the
Constitution , and hence the State
Legislature can certainly legislate on this
subject.

12. In Dental Council of India vs.
Subhatri KKB charitable Trust AIR
2001 SC 2151 (vide paragraph 13) and in
M/s Aruna Rai v. Union of India 2002
(7) SCC 368 the Supreme Court has
observed that in matters of policy the
Courts have a limited role of jurisdiction,
and can intervene only if the policy is
against some provision of the Constitution
.
In
our
opinion
the
impugned
Government Order do not violate any
provision of the Constitution.

13. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
34022 of 2002 XL-IIT forum and others
v. State of U.P. and others decided on
27.5.2003 a division bench of this court
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
546
observed that the Court should exercise
restraint in policy matters and should not
sit in appeal over the decision of the
Legislature. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 43985 of 1997 Kanpur Aloo Arhati
Association and another v. State of U.P.
and others decided on 1.7.2003 a
division bench of this court considered the
challenge
to
the
validity
of
the
Notification under section 7 (2) (b) of the
U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Ltd.
Adhiniyam and held that the said
Notification
amounts
to
delegated
legislation and hence the Court has very
limited scoped of interference.

14. In both the aforesaid decisions
this court stressed the importance of
judicial restraint by the court towards
legislative or administrative decisions.

15. In the counter affidavit the
respondents have mentioned in paragraph
4 the reasons for issuing the impugned
orders, and we cannot say that these
reasons are arbitrary.

16. Following the decisions of this
court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
34022 of 2002, XL-IIT Forum and others
v. State of U.P. and others and Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 43985 of 1997, Kanpur
Aloo Arhati Association and another v.
State of U.P. and others (supra), this writ
petition is dismissed. Interim order is
vacated.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40420 of 2001

Ram Singh Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner/Director Handloom
and Technology Nideshalaya, U.P. and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudhakar Pandey
Sri Prabhakar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Service
Law-appointment
vacancy
arising out resignation of a general
candidate,
belonging
to
Backword
Community-claimed
by
an
OBC
candidate-such claim contrary to G.O.
dated 25.3.94-which entitles candidates
from amongst the waiting list of that
particular category-held-candidate who
resigned even though from backward
community,
ceases
to
be
as
OBC
category-claim cannot survive.

Held- Para 9

I have given my considered thought to
the
aforesaid
argument
and
gone
through the Government Order dated
25.3.1994
and
in
my
opinion,
the
contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner, cannot be accepted, in as
much as the impugned Government
Order clearly demonstrates that if the
vacancy of General Category candidate
occurs during the lifetime of panel, the
same shall be filled in amongst the
waiting list of that particular category.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav who has
resigned and due to his resignation the
vacancy occurred which has given rise to
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in