# Brahamnad Tyagi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 873
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-15
- **Case number:** Writ A No.6237 of 2022
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brahamnad-tyagi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49282
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Agricultural Produce
Market
committees
(
Centralized
)
Services
Regulations,
1984-Petitioner
retired in 2018-chargesheet served on
2022-against this the present Petition- no
provision
under
Rules,
1984
which
empower
to
initiate
disciplinary
proceeding against a retired employeeimpugned order set aside.

Held, Even in case of adoption of rules
applicable to the St. Government employees
under Regulation 43 of Regulations 1984,
once the service is not pensionable under
Regulation 47 of Regulations 1984, no action
can be taken against him under Article 351-A
of CSR or any other rule adopted by
respondents
under
Regulation
43
of
Regulations 1984. (para 13)

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Brahamnad Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
873
remains under the domain of AICTE and
not with anyone else. The equivalence of
the course is also to be given by AICTE
being the council competent to issue
notification for technical education. It is
pursuant to the provisions of All India
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987.
If the recognition or equivalence of a
technical course is to be given, it has to be
as per the provisions of All India Council
for Technical Education Act, 1987 and not
in violation of it."

14. Now coming to the present case.
In this case also, advertisement is very
clear which shows that certificate has to be
issued by NCVT/ SCVT for a regular
student who has attended two years training
course, which is undisputedly lacking and
certificate of petitioner is issued by Indian
Armed Forces (Army) based upon 16 years
experience of service. This issue have also
been considered in the judgments cited
before this Court and it is consistently held
that Court cannot proceed to exercise its
authority of judicial review to compel the
respondents to accept the equivalence as
claimed by the petitioner based upon the
notification
issued
by
the
Central
Government coupled with the fact that
essential requirement is of two years
regular training course for obtaining
Diploma of NCVT/ SCVT. Therefore, in
light of discussion made hereinabove as
well as law laid down by the Courts, no
interference is required.

15. Petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 873
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ A No.6237 of 2022

Brahamnad Tyagi ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Kunal Shah, Sri Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Suresh
C. Dwivedi

Civil Law - U.P. Agricultural Produce
Market
committees
(
Centralized
)
Services
Regulations,
1984-Petitioner
retired in 2018-chargesheet served on
2022-against this the present Petition- no
provision
under
Rules,
1984
which
empower
to
initiate
disciplinary
proceeding against a retired employeeimpugned order set aside.

Held, Even in case of adoption of rules
applicable to the St. Government employees
under Regulation 43 of Regulations 1984,
once the service is not pensionable under
Regulation 47 of Regulations 1984, no action
can be taken against him under Article 351-A
of CSR or any other rule adopted by
respondents
under
Regulation
43
of
Regulations 1984. (para 13)

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & anr.
Vs Public Services Tribunal U.P. & ors., 2008 (2)
ADJ 11 (DB)

2. S.P.S. Raghav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2018(6)
ADJ 193 (DB)

3. Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
passed in Writ-A No. 7517 of 2016 decided on
29.02.2016
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeaj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kunal Shah, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri
S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. Present petition has been filed for
following reliefs:-

"I. Issue a Writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
07.07.2021, issued by Respondent No. 3,
being wholly without jurisdiction.

II. Issue a Writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned charge sheet dated 07.07.2022,
issued by enquiry officer."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner was employed in the
establishment of respondent no. 3 on
01.04.1999 on the post of Head Clerk and he
was retired on 30.04.2018. He further
submitted that a charge sheet has been served
upon petitioner on 07.04.2022, against which,
petitioner filed present petition. He next
submitted that service of the petitioner is
governed by U. P. Agricultural Produce
Market Committees (Centralized) Services
Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as
the Regulations, 1984) and Regulations, 1984
is having no provision to empower the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 to initiate
disciplinary proceeding against a retired
employee. Therefore, disciplinary proceeding
so initiated as well as impugned charge sheet
dated 07.04.2022 is bad in law, without
jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

4. He further submitted that under
Regulation 43 of Regulations, 1984 rules
relating
to
disciplinary
proceedings,
appeals
and
representations
against
punishment, applicable to the employees of
the State Government shall apply to the
members of the Centralized Service. It is
undisputed that as per Regulation 47 of the
Regulations, 1984, service of the petitioner
is not pensionable. Once the service of the
petitioner is not pensionable, Article 351-A
of
U.P.
Civil
Service
Regulations
(hereinafter referred to as CSR) shall not be
applicable in the case of petitioner and
disciplinary proceeding cannot be initiated
against him after retirement. He next
submitted that assuming it to be correct that
Article 351-A of CSR is applicable, even
though no disciplinary proceeding can be
initiated against the petitioner for the
reason that charge sheet was issued after
four years from the date of his retirement.
He lastly submitted that the very same issue
was challenged before this Court in the
case of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Parishad and another Vs. Public Services
Tribunal U.P. and others, 2008 (2) ADJ 11
(DB), in which this Court has framed four
questions, which were answered. Relevant
question was as to whether in absence of
any
rule
or
regulation,
disciplinary
proceeding can continue, after a charged
employee attains the age of superannuation.
The Court answered and held that under
Regulations, 1984 there is no provision for
disciplinary proceeding against a retired
employee, therefore, no such proceeding
can be initiated against a retired employee.
Even if proceeding so initiated before
retirement shall not continue and be
dropped. In the matter of S.P.S. Raghav Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2018(6) ADJ 193
(DB), the Court has taken the same view
and held that in absence of any rule, no
disciplinary proceeding can be initiated
against the retired employee. Similar issue
was again came up before this Court in the
9 All. Brahamnad Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
875
case of Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and 4 others passed in Writ-A No.
7517 of 2016 decided on 29.02.2016 in
which this Court has taken the same view.

5. Lastly, he submitted that under such
facts and circumstances of the case as well as
law laid down by this Court, the impugned
order dated 07.07.2021 for initiating inquiry
and
subsequent
charge
sheet
dated
07.04.2022 may be set aside.

6. Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 relying upon
paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit
submitted that as misconduct was traced out
first time in the year 2016, therefore,
disciplinary proceeding has been initiated
against the petitioner, but could not dispute
the legal submission made by learned counsel
for the petitioner based upon Regulations
1984 as well as judgments of this Court.

7. I have considered the submissions
made by learned counsels for the parties and
perused the Regulations 1984 as well as
judgment relied upon by learned counsel for
the petitioner. The facts of the case are
undisputed and only question before the
Court is as to whether any disciplinary
proceeding may be initiated against a retired
employee under Regulations 1984 or not.

8. This legal issue first time came up
before this Court in the matter of Rajya
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (supra) in
which Court has framed five questions to
answer. Question No. 4 is relevant for
deciding the present controversy, which is
quoted below:-

"(iv) The contesting respondent
reached the age of superannuation on
31.1.1994. In these circumstances, where at
this stage any disciplinary inquiry can
continue against the contesting respondent."

9. This Court after detailed discussions
replied the same in paragraphs 24 to 36,
which are being quoted below:-

"24.
The
Board,
with
prior
approval of the State Government, has
framed the Service Regulations. Regulation
43 relates to disciplinary proceeding. It is as
follows:

"43.
The
rules
relating
to
disciplinary
proceeding,
appeals
and
representations
against
punishment,
applicable to the employees of the State
Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to
the members of the centralized service."

25. This regulation applies the
rules relating to disciplinary proceeding,
appeal
and
representations
against
punishment, applicable to the employees of
the State Government, to the employees of the
Board with appropriate changes that should
be made in respect to the employees of the
Board.

26. The following rules were
applicable to the government servant at the
time of disciplinary inquiry:

The
Civil
Services
(Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules,
1930 (as notified in the State of UP) (the
1930 Rules);

The Punishment and Appeal Rules
for Subordinate Services Uttar Pradesh, 1932
(the 1932 Rules); and

Civil Services Regulation 351A.
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. At present, UP Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 (the 1999 Rules) are in force and the
1930 Rules and the 1932 Rules have been
rescinded. The inquiry, if it is to be
conducted then, has to be done in the light
of the 1999 Rules {see Rule 17(2) of the
1999 Rules} and Civil Services Regulation
351-A. However, it is not material whether
the 1930 and 1932 Rules or the 1999 Rules
are applicable because there is no
difference in them on the question whether
disciplinary proceeding can continue after
age of superannuation.

28. The counsel for the contesting
respondent submitted that:

The
contesting
respondent
reached the age of superannuation during
pendency of the case before the Tribunal on
31.1.1994;

The disciplinary proceeding after
date of superannuation can continue only if
article
351-A
of
the
Civil
Services
Regulations is applicable;

Article 351-A is applicable only
to pensionable posts;

The post of the petitioner is not
pensionable and as such article 351-A is
not applicable;

There is no other provision under
which disciplinary proceeding can continue
after superannuation.

The
entire
disciplinary
proceeding has become infructuous after
superannuation and are to be dropped.

Article 351-A of Civil Services
Regulations--Not Applicable

29. Article 351-A of the Civil
Services
Regulation
empowers
the
Governor to, Withhold or withdraw pension
or any part of it permanently or for the
specified period; or

Order for recovery from the
pension for any pecuniary loss caused to
the government.

30. In case any post is not
pensionable then Article 351-A is not be
applicable as there is no question of any
recovery from the pension of that person.
The post of the petitioner is not pensionable
and as such it is not applicable.

No Other Provision

31. No other rule or regulation
has been pointed out to show that any
deduction can be made from the post
retirement
benefits
or
disciplinary
proceeding
can
continue
after
superannuation.
The
question
is--in
absence
of
any
such
provision--can
disciplinary proceeding go on?

32. In this regard, the following
cases were cited before us. In our opinion,
they
do
not
help
in
deciding
the
controversy: the reasons are as follows:

(a) Subhash Chandra Sharma v.
Managing Director and another. 2000(1)
UPLBEC 541 (paragraph 9); Babu Lal v.
State of UP and Others. 2002 LabIC 3595
(paragraph
15);
UP
Cooperative
Federation Ltd. v. LP Rai (2007) (7) SCC
81 (paragraph 5). These are the cases,
where departmental inquiry was quashed
and the court also held that the fresh
inquiry can be done. There is no discussion
on the question whether the disciplinary
9 All. Brahamnad Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
877
proceeding
can
continue
after
superannuation or not.

(b) Union of India and Ors. v.
Shri B. Dev JT 1998 (5) SC 480 and
Krishna Kumar (dead.) through L.Rs. v.
State of UP and Ors. 1998 (4) AWC 595. In
these cases, the disciplinary proceeding
was
permitted
to
continue
after
superannuation.
However,
there
was
provision to continue the proceeding and
deduction from pension could be made. It
appears that posts were pensionable.

(c) Radhey Kant Khare v. UP
Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation
Ltd. 2003 (1) ESC 427 Town Area
Committee, Jalalabad, v. Jagdish Prasad
and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1407. In these cases,
the punishment order was quashed and
further disciplinary proceedings were not
held. However, no argument was advanced
before the court whether disciplinary
proceeding
should
be
permitted
to
continue. There is no discussion on the
question
whether
the
disciplinary
proceeding can proceed after age of
superannuation or not.

(d) CL Verma v. State of MP and
Ors. 1989 (59) FLR 786. This was the case,
where disciplinary proceeding was started
after retirement. The court held that as
there
is
no
provision
for
starting
disciplinary proceeding after retirement,
the charged employee can not be proceeded
with. This case is not applicable here as in
the present case not only the disciplinary
proceedings were started at the time when
the contesting respondent was in service
but they were completed and the removal as
well as appellate orders were passed when
the contesting respondent was in service.

(e) BJ Shelat v. State of Gujrat
and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 1109 (10) Union of
India and Ors. v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir
(1995) AIR 1995 SC 176 (4). In these cases,
the
employee
had
sought
voluntary
retirement. The government has option to
refuse it on specific grounds and the fact
that
disciplinary
proceedings
are
contemplated is one such ground. The
government did not exercise the option to
withhold the voluntary retirement within
time. It is in this light that the court held
that once an employee has voluntarily
retired the disciplinary proceeding can not
be started.

33. The counsel for the contesting
responded has cited Bhagirathi Jena v.
Board of Directors OSFC and Ors. (1999)
AIR 1999 SC 1841 (the BhagirathiJena
case); and the two other decisions of our
court reported in Dr. RB Agnihotri v. State
of UP and other 2000(2) ESC 915 and
Ravindra Singh Rathor v. District Inspector
of Schools Etawah and Ors. 2004 (1) AWC
310. The decisions of our court rely upon
the BhagirathiJena case. These cases are
relevant for deciding the issue involved in
the present case.

34. In the BhagirathiJena case,
the charged employee was suspended and
disciplinary inquiry was started before his
superannuation. However the inquiry could
not finish before his superannuation. The
charged employee was relieved after
superannuation without prejudice to the
claim of the employer. The disciplinary
proceeding
were
continued
after
his
superannuation. The charged employee
filed a writ petition, which was dismissed
by the High Court. The charged employee
took the matter to the Supreme Court.
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

35. The Supreme Court, after
noticing that there was neither any specific
provision to deduct the amount from the
provident fund nor any provision to
continue disciplinary proceeding, held:

"In view of the absence of such
provision in the above said regulations, it
must be held that the Corporation had no
legal authority to make any reduction in the
retiral benefits of the appellant. There is
also no provision for conducting a
disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the
appellant nor any provision stating that in
case misconduct is established, a deduction
could be made from retiral benefits. Once
the appellant had retired from service on
30.6.95, there was no authority vested in
the
Corporation
for
continuing
the
departmental enquiry even for the purpose
of imposing any reduction in the retiral
benefits payable to the appellant. In the
absence of such authority, it must be held
that the enquiry had lapsed and the
appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits
on retirement."

36. The position in this case is
similar.
The
effect
of
quashing
of
punishment order is that the disciplinary
proceedings revive and are pending. No
provision has been pointed out for
continuing the departmental enquiry or
making deduction from post retiral benefits
(apart from Article 351-A, which we have
held is not applicable). In view of the same,
the disciplinary proceeding cannot go on:
the petitioner is entitled to the salary and
post retiral benefits (minus the subsistence
allowance that he has already received)."

10. This issue was again came up
before this Court in the case of S.P.S.
Raghav (Supra). Paragraphs 9 to 14 of the
said judgment are quoted below:-

"9. Here in this case, it is not
clear that as to when Hon'ble Governor has
accorded
sanction
for
initiating
the
disciplinary proceeding but it is apparent
that the date, on which sanction was
accorded, is prior to commencement of
Rules of 2011 for the reasons that the
charge-sheet
was
served
upon
the
petitioner through letter dated 3.3.2011
whereas Rule 2011 came into force in
November
2011
i.e.
on
11.11.2011.
Therefore, it is clear that whenever
sanction
was
accorded
by
Hon'ble
Governor, the post of Chief Engineer was
not pensionable.

10. Here the question would be as
to whether the Rules of 2011 can be applied
with retrospective effect for grant of
sanction for initiating the disciplinary
proceedings against a retired employee.

11. We have gone through the
Rules of 2011 covering the field, in our
view, the competence of an authority for
exercising the power vested in, him is to be
seen on the date when the power has been
exercised and not on a subsequent date.
Here, in this case, on factual matrix, it is
not in dispute that the sanction was
accorded, for initiating the disciplinary
proceeding by Hon'ble the Governor, prior
to the commencement of the Rules of 2011
and at that time, the post, which was held
by the petitioner, was not pensionable
whereas under Regulation 351-A, the
Hon'ble
Governor
can
withhold
or
withdraw a pension or any part of it,
whether permanently or for a specified
period and the right of ordering the
recovery from a pension of the whole or
part of any pecuniary loss caused to
Government, if the pensioner is found in
departmental or judicial proceedings to
have been guilty of grave mis-conduct, or
9 All. Brahamnad Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
879
to
have
caused
pecuniary
loss
to
Government by misconduct or Negligence,
during his service, including service
rendered
on
re-employment
after
retirement.

12. Learned counsel for the other
side submitted that since the Rules of 2011 has
been made applicable with retrospective effect,
therefore there was no illegality in granting
sanction, in our considered view, the argument
advanced
by
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents is superfluous and does not carry
any weight as relevant date for exercising the
power will be the date on which it was
exercised as discussed, herein, above and the
same cannot be validated taking advantage of
subsequent enactment. In our view, since on the
date when Hon'ble Governor has accorded the
sanction for initiating disciplinary proceeding
was not having power as the post in question
was not pensionable, therefore he could not
accord the sanction.

13. The view taken by us, find
support from paragraphs 28 and 30 of the
judgement rendered by Division Bench of this
Court in case of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Parishad (supra), in which one of us (Justice
Ran Vijai Singh) was a member. For ready
reference, para 28 and 30 of the judgement
are being quoted herein below;

"28. The counsel for the contesting
respondent submitted that:

The contesting respondent reached
the age of superannuation during pendency
of the case before the Tribunal on 31.1.1994;

The disciplinary proceeding after
date of superannuation can continue only if
article
351-A
of
the
Civil
Services
Regulations is applicable;

Article 351-A is applicable only to
pensionable posts;

The post of the petitioner is not
pensionable and as such article 351-A is not
applicable;

There is no other provision under
which disciplinary proceeding can continue
after superannuation.

The entire disciplinary proceeding
has become infructuous after superannuation
and are to be dropped.

30. In case any post is not
pensionable then Article 351-A is not be
applicable as there is no question of any
recovery from the pension of that person. The
post of the petitioner is not pensionable and
as such it is not applicable."

14. It is well-settled law that any
order without jurisdiction is a nullity and no
legal consequence can flow from such order.
Reference may be made to the decisions of
the Apex Court in Managing Director, Army
Welfare Housing Organization v. Sumangal
Services Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619, Sarup
Singh and another v. Union of India and
another, (2011) 11 SCC 198, Division Bench
decision of this Court in the case of
Committee of Management Shri Jawahar
Inter College and another v. State of U.P. and
others in Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012
decided on 25.1.2012, Rajesh Kumar Shukla
v. State of U.P. and others, 2017(7) ADJ 601
and Mithai Lal v. State of U.P. and others
(Writ-A No. 24586 of 2014, decided on
12.10.2017).

11. Similar issue was again came up
before this Court for consideration in the
case of Rajendra Prasad Singh (supra).
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
After considering the judgments of Apex
Court as well of this High Court, this Court
has taken the same view. Relevant portion
of the said judgment is quoted below:-

"Counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondent nos. 2 to 5, in which it is
contended that since departmental enquiry
has been initiated prior to the petitioner's
superannuation, as such, it is legal for the
respondents to conclude such proceedings,
and order under challenge does not suffer
from any illegality. Learned counsel for the
respondents however, fairly states that on
the legal position, there exists no provision
in Service Rules, 1981 whereunder enquiry
initiated against an employee could be
continued or concluded even after an
employee
has
attained
the
age
of
superannuation.
Continuance
of
departmental
enquiry,
after
superannuation, in the absence of enabling
provision, has been considered in the case
of Dev Prakash Tiwari Vs. Uttar Pradesh
Cooperative Institutional Service Board,
Lucknow and others, (2014), 7 SCC 260.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
observe that in the absence of provision
existing in the Service Rules, disciplinary
proceedings cannot be allowed after
attaining superannuation and action of
respondents
in
continuing with
such
enquiry would be without jurisdiction.
Following the aforesaid view, this Court in
Special Appeal Defective no. 31 of 2016,
Banda District Cooperative Bank Limited
and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2
others, decided on 3.2.2016, has been
pleased to hold as under :-

"On a pointed query of the
Court, the learned counsel for the
appellant candidly admitted that there
was
no
provision
under
the
U.P.
Cooperative Service Regulation 1975,
which may authorize continuance of the
proceedings from the stage at which the
defect has been noticed nor is there any
provision
in
terms
of
which
the
proceedings may be continued and taken
to their logical conclusion even after the
retirement of the petitioner. We may in
this connection refer to the law as laid
down by the Supreme Court in Bhagirathi
Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. &
others as reiterated by the Supreme Court
in
Deo
Prakash
Tewari
Vs.
U.P.
Cooperative Institutional Service Board
which clearly hold that once an employee
has retired from service, in the absence of
any authority vesting in the employer the
right to continue disciplinary proceedings
thereafter, the enquiry proceedings would
be deemed to have lapsed and the
employee would be entitled to all retiral
benefits. In light of the above law laid
down by the Supreme Court, we are
unable to accede to the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant for a
remit of the proceedings.

For the aforesaid reasons, we
find no ground warranting interference
with the judgement of the learned Single
Judge. The special appeal is consequently
dismissed."

In view of the law settled, it is
not open for the respondents to proceed
pursuant to show cause notice dated
21.1.2016 for the purpose of passing any
order against the petitioner."

12. From perusal of the judgments of
the Apex Court as well as this Court, it is
very much clear that once there is no rule
occupying
the
field
for
disciplinary
proceeding against an employee after
retirement, proceeding so initiated or
continued
after
retirement,
is
not
9 All. Mahesh Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881
sustainable as it de-hors the rules and liable
to be set aside.

13. In the present case too,
petitioner was retired on 30.04.2018
thereafter disciplinary proceeding was
initiated vide order dated 07.07.2021 and
charge sheet was served upon him on
07.04.2022 i.e. undisputedly disciplinary
proceeding was initiated after retirement
of the petitioner whereas Regulations
1984 does not provide any disciplinary
proceeding against a retired employee.
Even in case of adoption of rules
applicable to the State Government
employees
under
Regulation
43
of
Regulations 1984, once the service is not
pensionable under Regulation 47 of
Regulations 1984, no action can be taken
against him under Article 351-A of CSR
or any other rule adopted by respondents
under Regulation 43 of Regulations 1984.
Therefore,
impugned
order
dated
07.07.2021 and subsequent charge sheet
dated 07.07.2022 are bad in law and
liable to be set aside.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated
07.07.2021 passed by respondent no. 3
and charge sheet dated 07.04.2022 are
hereby quashed.

15. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 881
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Writ A No.7994 of 2022
Mahesh Kumar Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, Ms. Jigyasa Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra

Civil Law - U.P. Higher Judicial Service
Rules, 1975- prescription of minimum passing
marks
in
the
interview-upheld-Petitioners
participated in interview-had knowledge of
prescribed minimum pass marks-cannot turn
around and contest the minimum prescribed
marks.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. All India Judges' Assc. & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
(2002) 4 SCC 247

2. Ramesh Kumar Vs High Court of Delhi & anr.,
(2010) 3 SCC 104

3. Hemani Malhotra Vs High Court of Delhi,
(2008) 7 SCC 11

4. Salam Samarjeet Singh Vs High Court of
Manipur at Imphal & anr., (2016) 10 SCC 484

5. Taniya Malik Vs Registrar General of the High
Court of Delhi, (2018) 14 SCC 129

6. K.H. Siraj Vs High Court of Kerala & ors.,
(2006) 6 SCC 395

7. St. of U.P. Vs Rafiquddin & ors., 1987 (Supp)
SCC 401

8. Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu & ors. Vs St. of
Orissa & ors., (1995) 6 SCC 1

9. Manjeet Singh, UDC & ors. Vs Employees St.
Insurance Corp. & anr., (1990) 2 SCC 367

10. Lila Dhar Vs St. of Raj. & ors., (1981) 4 SCC
159