# Brij Bihari Lal Tandon v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 781
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-21
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Shamsher Bahadur Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brij-bihari-lal-tandon-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44211
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

S.C., Ashok Khare, D.D. Chaudhary, D.D.Chauhan, K.K. Singh, L.P. Naithani, P.K.Singh, Satendra Pratap
Singh, V.Malviya, R.C. Singh

Nazul Land / Municipal Property-Lease-Renewal-Freehold Conversion-Entitlement- Land in
dispute found to be property of Municipal Board and not Nazul land-Petitioner's claim based on Nazul Manual
held misconceived-Lease deed itself described land as Municipal Board property and petitioner had admitted
ownership of Municipal Board-Petitioner estopped from taking contrary plea-Nazul Manual not applicable-
(Paras 21, 23, 27)
Lease-Expiry-Breach of Covenants-Effect- Lease granted for 30 years expired by efflux of timePetitioner committed breach of lease conditions by unauthorized sub-letting without Collector's permissionViolation admitted-No subsisting right to continue in possession-(Paras 25, 26)
Lease-Renewal-No Vested Right- Mere recommendation for renewal or acceptance subject to
conditions does not confer enforceable right-Renewal not automatic-Condition of premium validly
imposed-Refusal to waive premium justified-(Paras 9, 3)
Public Premises-Eviction- After expiry of lease and breach of conditions, petitioner became unauthorized
occupant-Municipal Board entitled to seek eviction-Collector's order directing removal of possession valid-
(Paras 27, 28)
Freehold Conversion-Claim-Maintainability- No right to seek conversion of leasehold into freehold
where underlying title and eligibility itself disputed and lease already expired-Proceedings rightly kept in
abeyance in view of disputes-(Paras 14, 28)
Holding Over-Inapplicability- Doctrine under Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act not applicable
after expiry of lease in absence of landlord's assent-No deemed renewal-(Para 28)
In Result- Writ petitions dismissed; petitioner held to have no right for renewal of lease or conversion into
freehold; eviction action upheld. (Paras 29, 30)

Cases cited
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

## Text

7 All. Brij Bihari Lal Tandon Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
781
------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J.

Writ C No.- 13846 Of 1988
&
Writ C No.- 20134 Of 2000

Brij Bihari Lal Tandon ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Atul Dayal, A.K. Srivastava, A.N. Singh, Ashok Srivastava, K.M. Dayal, Pramod Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Ashok Khare, D.D. Chaudhary, D.D.Chauhan, K.K. Singh, L.P. Naithani, P.K.Singh, Satendra Pratap
Singh, V.Malviya, R.C. Singh

Nazul Land / Municipal Property-Lease-Renewal-Freehold Conversion-Entitlement- Land in
dispute found to be property of Municipal Board and not Nazul land-Petitioner's claim based on Nazul Manual
held misconceived-Lease deed itself described land as Municipal Board property and petitioner had admitted
ownership of Municipal Board-Petitioner estopped from taking contrary plea-Nazul Manual not applicable-
(Paras 21, 23, 27)
Lease-Expiry-Breach of Covenants-Effect- Lease granted for 30 years expired by efflux of timePetitioner committed breach of lease conditions by unauthorized sub-letting without Collector's permissionViolation admitted-No subsisting right to continue in possession-(Paras 25, 26)
Lease-Renewal-No Vested Right- Mere recommendation for renewal or acceptance subject to
conditions does not confer enforceable right-Renewal not automatic-Condition of premium validly
imposed-Refusal to waive premium justified-(Paras 9, 3)
Public Premises-Eviction- After expiry of lease and breach of conditions, petitioner became unauthorized
occupant-Municipal Board entitled to seek eviction-Collector's order directing removal of possession valid-
(Paras 27, 28)
Freehold Conversion-Claim-Maintainability- No right to seek conversion of leasehold into freehold
where underlying title and eligibility itself disputed and lease already expired-Proceedings rightly kept in
abeyance in view of disputes-(Paras 14, 28)
Holding Over-Inapplicability- Doctrine under Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act not applicable
after expiry of lease in absence of landlord's assent-No deemed renewal-(Para 28)
In Result- Writ petitions dismissed; petitioner held to have no right for renewal of lease or conversion into
freehold; eviction action upheld. (Paras 29, 30)

Cases cited
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Both these writ petitions relates to same parties and properties and are connected,
therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Petitioner-Brij Bihari Lal Tandon claims himself to be a lease holder of Nazul Plots no.
148/14 area 1.366 karis and 167/4 area 2.200 karis, total 1.566 karis, within Manunath Bhanjan
Municipality, pursuant to a registered lease deed dated 10.10.1953. Lease deed was executed by
Governor of United Provinces on one part and petitioner-Brij Bihari Lal Tandon on second part. On
behalf of Governor lease deed was executed by Municipal Board, Mau and Collector of District
Azamgarh as 'Lessor'. The term of lease was 30 years w.e.f. 01.10.1953.

3. Petitioner constructed two godowns on leased land which were sub-let to Regional Food
Controller as directed by Collector, Azamgarh. Subsequently a Bungalow was also constructed
over a portion of land and same was let out to Life Insurance Corporation under the directions of
Collector. Term of lease was to expire in 1983 and in anticipation thereof petitioner applied for
renewal of lease in 1979. Lease was not renewed till the term expired, though subsequently
Collector recommended renewal of lease vide letter dated 16.07.1984. State Government accepted
recommendation, required petitioner to pay premium of Rs. 1,97,200/- and annual rent of Rs. 295/-.
Letter to this effect was issued to petitioner on 31 May/ 10 June, 1985 by Nazul Officer. Petitioner
agreed to pay annual rent but objecting demand of premium of Rs. 1,97,200/-, submitted an
application dated 05.08.1985 requesting for its waiver, in view of Rule 17(3) of Nazul Manual.
Collector, Azamgarh, vide letter dated February, 1986 made recommendation in favour of
petitioner for waiver of premium but same was not accepted and instead impugned order dated
08.07.1988 has been passed by Collector, Azamgarh, directing petitioner to remove his Malba from
disputed land and handover vacant possession to Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Maunath
Bhanjan. It is this order dated 08.07.1988 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) which has been
challenged in Writ Petition No. 13846 of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "first petition")
seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. Petitioner has also sought a mandamus
commanding respondents to renew lease in his favour for another term of 30 years in accordance
with Rules 17(3), 22, 55 and 56 of Nazul Manual, without insisting for payment of any premium.

4. Original copy of lease deed has also been placed on record, alongwith a supplementary
affidavit sworn on 18.03.1998 by Vishnu Kumar Tandon son of petitioner.

5. The first petition has been contested by Respondent-3 by filing a counter affidavit sworn
by Faizur Rahman, Head Clerk, Municipal Board, Maunath Bhanjan. It is stated therein that
petitioner has played fraud inasmuch as he was President of Municipal Board in 1950. He moved
an application to District Magistrate, Azamgarh who was also occupying the office of
Administrator, Municipal Board in 1953, requesting that disputed plots be given to him on lease.
Collector/ Administrator sought report from Secretary, Municipal Board. Land belong to Municipal
7 All. Brij Bihari Lal Tandon Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
783
Board and was governed by rules applicable to Municipal Board. Pursuant thereto Executive
Officer submitted report dated 21.04.1951 recommending to execute lease deed for a period of 30
years.

6. Nazul Clerk also examined matter and submitted report that land in question is property
of Municipal Board, Mau and not Nazul land, hence would be governed by Municipal Board and
not rules applicable to Nazul land.

7. Petitioner when applied for renewal concealed this fact that land in dispute is not Nazul
but belong to Municipal Board and sought renewal in terms of Nazul Manual, whereupon District
Magistrate forwarded his request under the impression that disputed property is Nazul land, without
examining old record.

8. The State Government, however, vide order dated 20.03.1985 observed that petitioner
has committed breach of terms of lease. However, if he agrees to pay premium of Rs. 1,97,200/-
and annual rent of Rs. 295/-, matter of renewal may be examined. Municipal Board wrote a letter
dated 09.07.1987 to District Magistrate stating that disputed land is needed for Industrial
Development by Respondent-3. Collector then communicated petitioner the said need of Municipal
Board and directed him to vacate premises vide letter dated 08.07.1986. The lease having already
expired, petitioner has no right of any kind to occupy disputed land and, therefore, has to vacate the
same.

9. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Respondents-1 and 2 sworn by Raj
Bahadur, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Mau stating that mere
recommendation for renewal does not confer any right upon petitioner for renewal in the manner he
likes. It is also said that it is not a case where Government gave an option to petitioner for renewal
but an option was given for fresh lease subject to payment of premium. Further, in the meantime,
since Municipal Board required land for its own purpose, therefore, petitioner has been directed to
vacated disputed land.

10. Another counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent-4 stating that disputed land
belong to Respondent-3 and in support thereof he has referred to Khatauni of 1391 Fasli. We find
that in the said Khatauni disputed land is shown as 'Abadi' and recorded as "Government land"
under the management of Municipal Board.

11. In reply to counter affidavit filed by Respondent-3 petitioner has also filed a rejoinder
affidavit. In respect of averments contained in para 4 of the counter affidavit that petitioner has
deliberately suppressed material facts and disputed land is not a "Nazul" but belong to Municipal
Board, nothing has been said in para 4 of rejoinder affidavit except of referring to lease deed,
provisions of Nazul Manual and subsequent recommendations made by Collector. It would be
appropriate to reproduce para 4 of counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 and petitioner's reply
contained in para 4 of rejoinder affidavit:
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"4. That plot no. 148/14 and 167/4 situated within the Municipal Limit of Maunath
Bhanjan has all along vested in the Municipal Board and is not a Nazul land. The petitioner has
made deliberate suppression of material facts especially when he had been the President of
Municipal Board. On 3.10.1950 the petitioner moved application to the District Magistrate,
Azamgarh who was the Administrator of Municipal Board in 1950 praying that the aforesaid plots
of land may be given to him on lease. A copy of the same is filed herewith as Annexure (1) to this
counter affidavit. The Administrator directed the Secretary of Municipal Board to report in the
matter. At the particular time the transfer of property vested in Municipal Board were govern by
the rules. A copy of the same is filed herewith as Annexure (2) to this counter affidavit. The
Executive Officer of the Board submitted report on 17.10.1950. On 21.4.1951 the Executive Officer
submitted report. A copy of the report is filed herewith and is marked as Annexure (3) to this
counter affidavit."

"4. The contents of para 4 of the counter affidavit are misconceived and denied.
The lease deed was executed on 10.10.1953 and petitioner applied lease for 90 years. But the lease
was granted for 30 years only inspite of clear provision under Rule 22 Rule 56 of Nazul Manual.
Moreover the petitioner also applied for renewal of lease in the year of 1979, enquiry and opinion
of D.G.C. was also obtained and thereafter the District Magistrate recommended the renewal lease
on 16.7.84 vide Annexure 4 to the petition. However the application of petitioner for renewal of
lease is still pending."

12. However, in respect of averments contained in para 5 and 6 of counter affidavit filed by
Respondent-3 that Nazul Clerk submitted report that property belongs to Municipal Board,
petitioner in para 5 of rejoinder affidavit has said that disputed land originally owned by Rani
Dhandei Kuwar, Zamindar and acquired by Secretary of State for India under Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1894") vide award dated 09.09.1909 and
Government of India became owner thereof. Subsequently these plots were given under
management of Town Area and never vested in it. Town Area with passage of time became
Municipal Board. Transfer of management does not create proprietory rights and control of Nazul
land remain with Collector on behalf of State, hence Nazul Manual continue to apply.

13. The first petition came up for admission before this Court on 26.07.1988 when this
Court passed following interim order:

"Till further orders of the Court the direction of the Government to the petitioner
to renew the lease on condition of payment of premium of Rs. 1,97,200/- shall remain stayed. The
petitioner shall be liable to pay only the annual rent as has been determined in the order dated
31.3.85, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The arrears shall be paid
within six weeks from the date a copy of this order is filed before the District Magistrate/ Collector,
Azamgarh."

14. During pendency of above writ petition, petitioner applied for conversion of free hold
rights in respect of disputed property by submitting application dated 04.01.1999 and depositing
7 All. Brij Bihari Lal Tandon Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
785
Rs. 2,40,000/- (1/4 of total value). It appears that Collector issued a demand notice dated
31.08.1999 requiring petitioner to deposit total balance amount of Rs. 11,19,046.80. Petitioner
deposited same on 04.09.1999. Thereafter District Magistrate sought direction from Government
vide letter dated 06.09.1999 and State Government vide letter dated 22.09.1999 required Collector
to proceed for execution of sale deed. When no action was taken, petitioner moved representation
dated 28.09.1999 to Chief Secretary, U.P. whereupon a direction was issued on 04.10.1999 to
comply with earlier direction of State Government contained in letter dated 22.09.1999 and
Commissioner was also directed to ensure compliance. Thereupon Commissioner issued letter on
07.10.1999 to Collector requesting him to execute sale deed. However, Collector again sought
direction from State Government, vide letter dated 25.10.1999, whereupon Government vide order
dated 05.12.1999 directed Collector to execute sale deed. Since matter remained pending, petitioner
filed Writ Petition No. 8776 of 2000, which was disposed of on 22.02.2000 directing Collector to
decide petitioner's claim. In the meantime, one Jagannath Singh moved objection dated 07.03.2000
stating that land belong to Nagar Palika and persons occupying same should not be evicted.
Another objection dated 08.03.2000 was filed by Nagar Palika stating that civil suit is pending in
respect of disputed land. District Magistrate rejected objection of Nagar Palika for deferring free
hold proceedings vide order dated 23.08.1999 but thereafter passed order dated 20.04.2000
directing that matter should be kept in abeyance till civil suits are decided. It is this order dated
20.04.2000, which has been challenged by petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 20134 of 2000
(hereinafter referred to as the "second petition").

15. It is not in disputed that two suits were pending in respect of disputed land being
Original Suits No. 79 of 2000 and 164 of 1999.

16. Both the writ petitions were disposed of on 08.05.2009 by a Division Bench consisting
of Hon'ble P.C. Verma and Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra, J.J. with following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned standing counsel.

Collector Mau is directed to take decision in compliance with the Government
Order dated 17.1.2000 contained in (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) within a period of two
months as the petitioner has already deposited the whole amount as mentioned in the Government
Order for getting the land free hold.

Petitioner is disposed of with the aforesaid observation/ direction."

17. Felt aggrieved by aforesaid order, Respondent-3 filed appeal in Supreme Court being
Civil Appeals no. 5684 and 5685 of 2012. The appeals have been decided vide judgment dated
27.07.2012 and setting aside order dated 08.05.2009, matter has been remanded to decide both
these writ petitions on merits. The order passed by Apex Court on 27.07.2012, reads as under:

"Leave granted.
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the order passed by the High Court clearly shows that no reasons
have been assigned by the High Court in support of its conclusion. The matter pertains to grant of
freehold rights to the respondents which had to be considered on the basis of material produced
before the Court.

In view of above, the impugned orders passed by the High Court are set aside and
the matters are remitted back to the High Court for deciding the writ petitions on merit. Since the
parties have been litigating for a very long time, the High Court is requested to dispose of the writ
petitions as early as possible, in any event, within a period of six months from the date of
communication of this order.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly."

18. It is in these circumstances, both these matters have come up before this Court for
hearing and disposal.

19. We are also informed that Original Suit No. 164 of 1999 filed by Respondent-3 has
been dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mau vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2016.

20. Copy of original agreement (deed of lease) executed on 10.10.1953 is on record and on
the top it is mentioned as "Lease Of The Municipal Board Land For The Purpose Of Building
Residential Quarter And Godowns For The Government Department". It further says that deed is
being executed between Governer of Uttar Pradesh called as "Lessor" and Brij Behari Lal Tandon
called as "Lessee". It further says that Municipal Board, Mau of District Azamgarh has agreed on
behalf of Lessor to demise plot of land described in deed subject to rights and restrictions and
several covenants stated thereafter in agreement. The right to hold premises by lessee is clearly
mentioned for a tenure of 30 years from 01.10.1953. Thereafter it contains about 13 stipulations
dealing with terms and conditions. Right to cancel lease, reentry etc. are contained in following
clause:

"Provided always and these presents are executed on this express condition that if
and whenever the rent hereby reserved as payable by the lessee or any part thereof shall be in
arrear and unpaid for the spare of three months, whether the same shall have been lawfully
demanded or not, or if there shall be a breach of non-observance of any of the covenants by the
Lessee hereinbefore contained then and in any such case the lessor notwithstanding the Waiver of
any cause or right of re-entry may re-enter upon the said premises and expel the lessee and forfeit
all rights to remove and recover any compensation for any building rented by him on the said
premises.

And the Lessor hereby covenants with the Lessee, (Firstly) that he will during the
period of his sub-tenancy pay and discharge all rates, taxes, charges and assessments of every
7 All. Brij Bihari Lal Tandon Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
787
description which may then or which may at any time thereafter be assessed, charged or imposed
upon the said premises or the buildings to be erected thereon or the landlord or tenant in respect
thereof.

Provided also that the expressions 'the lessor' and 'the Lessee' hereinbefore used
shall unless such an interpretation be inconsistent with the context include in the case of the former
his successor and assigns and in the case of the latter his heirs, executors, administrators,
representatives and assigns."

21. The document makes it very clear that though agreement was executed by Municipal
Board, Mau and Collector both and it was on behalf of Governor of Uttar Pradesh, and petitioner,
Brij Behari Lal Tandon but description of land was clearly mentioned as Municipal Board's land.

22. Besides above, copy of petitioner's own letter dated 03.10.1950 has also been placed on
record as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent-3 sworn on 30.08.1988
by Faizur Rahman, Head Clerk, Municipal Board, Mau and petitioner himself has admitted therein
that disputed land is owned by Mau Municipal Board. The letter reads as under:

"To,
The District Magistrate,
Azamgarh.

Sir,

Most respectfully I bet to submit that I need a suitable plot of land for cottage
industries at the outskirts of the Town.

The Mau Municipal Board owns two plots of lands in Village Nizamuddinpur.
The number of the plots of land 148/11/2 and 167/1/1 and their area is 2 acres 888 kari and 207
kari respectfully. That land is lying useless and is quite suitable for our purposes.

The Municipal Board Mau used to give this land on yearly contract every year, but
it is lying vacant now.

I request you most earnestly, every kindly to give these two plots of lands to me on
suitable compensation in the interest of development of the Cottage Industries.

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,

Ocrober, 3, 1950

 Brij Behari Lal Tandon"

23. Report submitted by Nazul Clerk on 27.09.1951 on application of petitioner also refers
to old acquisition files and says that land was acquired for Town Area, Mau, in 1909 for "Night
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Soil" and it was transferred to it by State hence it was property of Municipal Board and not a Nazul
land. Subsequent case pleaded by petitioner is also that land initially belong to Smt. Rani Dhandei
Kuwar, the then Zamindar, wherefrom it was acquired by State for being used as "Night Soil" by
the then local body Town Area, Mau, which subsequently has been upgrated to the status of
Municipal Board, Mau. All these facts make it clear that the factum that land in dispute belong to
Municipal Board Mau since its very inception when lease agreement was executed was never
disputed by petitioner. That being so, petitioner is estopped from taking a different stand in order to
claim a right of renewal under Nazul Manual or otherwise or right of conversion of freehold by
stating that land is not owned by Municipal Board but is vested in State Government and is a Nazul
land, governed by provisions of Nazul Manual and not the rules and regulations applicable to land
owned and maintained by Municipal Board.

24. Then the question comes, whether there is any breach of the covenants of lease deed or
not.

25. Stipulation No. 8 of agreement reads as under:

"And (Eighthly) that he will not at any time carry on or permit to be carried on
upon the said premises and trade or business whatsoever or use the same for any other purpose
then as godowns, residential quarter and outbuildings or the Government Departments without the
consent in writing of the Collector first had and obtained."

26. Petitioner let out two godowns without the consent of Collector to U.P. Small Scale
Industries, Lucknow. Similarly in violation of Clause 12 of agreement he let out residential
building to a Sale Tax Officer though it was not directed or nominated by Collector. Both these
facts were admitted by petitioner in his letter dated 05.08.1985 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
He, therefore, committed breach of covenants and lost any right to continue. Even otherwise,
petitioner's lease expired on expiry of 30 years from 01.10.1953.

27. Rule 17 and 55 of Nazul Manual, as referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner,
have no application whatsoever as is evident from bare reading thereof. On the contrary, land in
dispute is clearly a "Public Premises" owned and managed by Municipal Board, Mau. It was
entitled to determine lease deed and request Collector for petitioner's eviction from disputed
property. It is pursuant thereto Collector has passed impugned order.

28. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2016 SC
1806 Court has observed, where there is a breach of the covenants of lease deed, in law, there was
no need to even formal determination of tenancy as after expiry of original period of lease it stands
terminated by efflux of time. There is no automatic or deemed acceptance of renewal of tenancy
and even principle of "Holding Over" under Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would
have no application. The status of petitioner, the original lessee, after expiry of period of lease thus
became that of an "unauthorized occupant". Therefore, petitioner has no legal or otherwise right to
7 All. Satya Prakash Vs State
789
seek a mandamus either to command respondents to renew lease of land in question in his favour or
to convert his lease rights into freehold rights.

29. We, therefore, find no merit in both these writ petitions.

30. Dismissed.

31. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

32. No costs.
-----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

Writ A No.- 15550 Of 1985
&
Connected With Other Cases

Satya Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vipin Sexena

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.
Service Law-Recruitment-Statutory Rules-Commencement-Effect- Group 'D' Employees Service
Rules, 1985 providing that Rules shall "come into force at once" held operative from date of notification i.e.
16.03.1985-Subsequent publication does not postpone enforceability-Rules applicable to all selections made
thereafter. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
Service Law-Appointment-Illegality-Non-compliance with statutory Rules- Selections made
without following prescribed procedure under applicable Rules held illegal and void-Appointments made after
enforcement of Rules but in breach thereof cannot be sustained-Cancellation of such appointments justified.
(Paras 14, 19)
Service Law-Irregularity vs. Illegality- Non-observance of mandatory recruitment procedure under
statutory Rules not a mere irregularity but goes to root-Appointments made dehors Rules liable to be set
aside-(Paras 3, 14)
Equitable Relief-Recovery of Salary- Where appointments were illegal but employees not guilty of
fraud or misrepresentation and irregularity attributable to employer-Recovery of salary received during
service would be inequitable-Particularly in case of lower cadre employees-Recovery barred on principles of
equity and good conscience. (Paras 15, 18)