# C/M, J.S.R. K. Inter College & another v. Joint Director of Education & others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39643
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-j-s-r-k-inter-college-another-v-joint-director-of-education-others-39643
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

1ALL] C/M, J.S.R. K. Inter College & another V. Joint Director of Education & others

49
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' '(&(0%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' '(&(0%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 55. 75,9(', -
7+( +21·%/( 55. 75,9(', -
7+( +21·%/( 0& -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 0& -$,1 -

6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R RI
&RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW -DJGLVK 6DUDQ
5DMZDQVKL .DQ\D ,QWHU &ROOHJH 0HHUXW DQG
DQRWKHU
«$SSHOODQWV
9HUVXV
-RLQW
'LUHFWRU
RI
(GXFDWLRQ
,VW
5HJLRQ
0HHUXW DQG 2WKHU¶V
«5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQWV
6KUL *. 6LQJK
6KUL $3 6DKL
6KUL 51 6LQJK
6KUL $UXQ 7DQGRQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL :+ .KDQ
6KUL .3 %DMSDL
6&

5HJXODWLRQ RI WKH ,QWHUPHGLDWH (GXFDWLRQ
$FW2QFH D WHDFKHU KDV DWWDLQHG WKH DJH RI
VXSHUDQQXDWLRQ KH KDV QR YHVWHG ULJKW WR
FRQWLQXH
LQ
VHUYLFH
7KH
RUGHU
RI
DSSRLQWPHQW FDQQRW EH LVVXHG LQ IDYRXU RI
VXFK WHDFKHU WKRXJK VHOHFWHG IRU WKH SRVW E\
WKH FRPPLVVLRQ DIWHU DWWDLQLQJ WKH DJH RI
VXSHUDQQXDWLRQ 7KH HGXFDWLRQDO DXWKRULW\
DV ZHOO DV WKH FRPPLWWHH RI PDQDJHPHQW
ZHUH QRW MXVWLILHG LQ LVVXLQJ WKH OHWWHU RI
DSSRLQWPHQW LQ IDYRXU RI D WHDFKHU IRU WKH
SRVW RI SULQFLSDO ZKR KDG DOUHDG\ DWWDLQHG
WKH DJH RI VXSHUDQQXDWLRQ
+HOG
2QFH D WHDFKHU KDV DWWDLQHG WKH DJH RI
VXSHUDQQXDWLRQ LQ RWKHU ZRUGV DJH RI
<HDUV RU <HDUV DV WKH FDVH PD\ EH KH
KDV QR YHVWHG ULJKW WR FRQWLQXH LQ VHUYLFH
7KH RUGHU RI DSSRLQWPHQW WKXV FRXOG QRW EH
LVVXHG LQ IDYRXU RI VXFK WHDFKHU WKRXJK
VHOHFWHG IRU WKH SRVW E\ WKH FRPPLVVLRQ
DIWHU DWWDLQLQJ WKH DJH RI VXSHUDQQXDWLRQ ,Q
RXU RSLQLRQ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO DXWKRULWLHV
DV
ZHOO DV FRPPLWWHH RI PDQDJHPHQW ZHUH QRW
MXVWLILHG LQ LVVXLQJ WKH OHWWHU RI DSSRLQWPHQW
LQ IDYRXU RI WHDFKHU IRU WKH SRVW RI SULQFLSDO
ZKR
KDG
DOUHDG\
DWWDLQHG
WKH
DJH
RI
VXSHUDQQXDWLRQ SDUD

By the Court

1. As in both the aforesaid special appeals
the controversy involved is similar, they can
be disposed of by a common order against
which learned counsel for the parties have no
objection. Special appeal no. 619 of 1999
shall be the leading case.

2. The facts, in short, giving rise to special
appeal no. 619 of 1999 are that the post of
principal of Jagdish Saran Rajvanshi Kanya
Inter College, Meerut (hereinafter referred to
as the college) fell vacant on account of
retirement of Smt. Sarala Bansal. This
vacancy was communicated to the U.P.
Secondary Education Service Commission
under the provisions of U. P. Secondary
Education Services and Selection Boards Act,
1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and
the rules framed thereunder. The commission
in its turn advertised the post inviting
applications vide advertisement no.1, 199596. Large number of persons applied in
pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. The
commission having interviewed two senior
most teachers of the institution and also the
candidates who had directly applied and after
completion
of the selection proceedings
notified the panel of selected candidates on
15.4.1997. The panel recommended by the
commission was as under:

¢ Maya Rani Goel (respondent no. 3 in
appeal),
¢ Smt. Shashi Sharma (respondent no. 4
in appeal), and
¢ Smt. Harishwati Yadav.

3. The office of principal of S.S.D. Balika
Inter College, Lal Kurti, Meerut also fell
vacant on account of retirement of Smt. Shail
Singhal on 30.06.1991. This vacancy was also
intimated to the commission as per rules and
was also advertised by advertisement no.1,
1995-96 and after selection proceedings a
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
50
panel was recommended on 15.4.1997 of
following three names:-

¢ Smt. Santosh Khurana,
¢ Smt. Saroj Yadav ( appellent in special
appeal appeal no 539 of 1999), and
¢ Smt. Shashi Sharma ( respondent no. 4
in special appeal no. 619 of 1999).

4. It is not in dispute that on account of
various interim orders passed by this Court in
writ petitions, some of which were of general
in nature, prohibiting the implementation of
panel dated 15.4.1997 the authorities did not
take any action as required under the Act and
the rules for implementation of appointment
of selected candidates from the panel dated
15.4.1997. In the above circumstances the
committee of management vide resolution no.
7 of 20" June, 1997 authorised Smt. Maya
Rani Goel to work as officiating principal
.Though, the committee also took notice of
the fact that she had been selected by the
commission
for
appointment
as
regular
principal and her name is at serial no. 1 in the
panel. It was also said in the resolution that
after completion of legal formalities she will
ultimately
get
the
aforesaid
office.
In
pursuance of the aforesaid resolution Maya
Rani
Goel,
respondent.
No.
3
started
discharging functions of the principal w.e.f.
1st July, 1997. She attained the age of
superannuation on 7.8.1998 but she was
allowed to continue in the office in view of
the regulation 21 of Chapter 3 which provides
that age of superannuation for principal and
teachers and other employees shall be 60
years but if the date of superannuation falls
between 2nd July and 30 June then there will
be automatic extension of service up to the
close of academic session i.e. 30th June so that
alternative arrangement may be made by the
committee of management during summer
vacation for the new academic session
commencing from the month of July. By
virtue of the aforesaid regulation Maya Rani
Goel continued in the office upto 30th June ,
1999.

In respect of S.S.D. Balika Inter College,
Lal Kurti, Meerut Smt. Shantosh Khurana
who was recommended at serial no. 1 in the
panel for the post of principal attained the age
of superannuation on 15.12.1998. It may be
clarified that her date of birth was 15.12.1940
but
she
was
to
attain
the
age
of
superannuation after completing 58 years of
age on account of option exercised by her
earlier.

5. The writ petitions and special appeals
challenging the panel dated 15.4.1997 were
considered and decided finally by this Court
by the Judgment dated 6th October, 1998
reported in (1998) 3 UPLBEC 989, Balak
Singh Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. & others.
About panel prepared and notified by the
commission following order was passed:-
"The selection made by the commission
and the panel prepared and notified on
15.4.1997 is not affected in any way by the
Government notification dated 17.4.1997. The
panel shall be implemented by the educational
authorities in accordance with law without
further delay. The writ petitions of group 3
seeking implementation of the aforesaid
panels
are
thus,
allowed
and
decided
accordingly. The writ petitions belonging to
the 4th group challenging the panel dated
15.4.1997 are dismissed.

6. After the Judgment dated 6.10.1998 a
letter dated 21.8.1999 was written by the
District Inspector of Schools to the manager
of the college for making appointment of the
selected candidate namely Smt. Maya Rani
Goel. Thereafter committee of management
on 30.1.1999 issued letter of appointment in
favour of Smt. Maya Rani Goel appointing
her principal on regular basis on the basis of
the selection made by the commission.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of District
Inspector of School and the committee of
management respondent no. 4, Smt. Shashi
Sharma who was placed at serial no. 2 in the
panel filed writ petition no. 12607 of 1999
1ALL] C/M, J.S.R. K. Inter College & another V. Joint Director of Education & others

51
challenging the appointment of respondent.
No. 3, Smt. Maya Rani Goel on the ground
that as she had already attained the age of
superannuation the order of appointment
could not be issued in her favour and she
being shown at second place in the panel
should have been appointed as regular
principal. Learned Single Judge disposed of
this writ petition by the order dated 28.7.1999
directing that the petitioner who has been
selected for the post of principal shall be
permitted to function as principal of the
institution in question. Learned Single judge
also gave liberty to committee of management
to make representation before the Director of
Education in respect of their contention that
respondent no. 4, Shashi Sharma was not
qualified for the post. Aggrieved by this
Judgment of learned Single Judge committee
of management and manager of the college
have filed special appeal no. 619 of 1997.

7. The management of S.S.D. Balika Inter
College Lal Kurti, Meerut also issued order of
appointment in favour of Smt. Santosh
Khurana on 2.2.1999 though she had already
attained the age of superannuation. The
appellant, Smt. Saroj Yadav aggrieved by the
aforesaid action filed writ petition no. 18232
of 1999 in this Court in which interim order
was passed and order of appointment dated
2.2.1999 in favour of Smt. Santosh Khurana
was stayed. This interim order was further
extended on 25.5.1999. However during
pendency of the aforesaid writ petition
respondent no. 1, Smt. Madhu Chaurasia field
writ petition no. 30304 of 1999 and obtained
interim order dated 23.7.1999 which reads as
under :-

"Until further order petitioner shall be
permitted to function as adhoc principal in the
institution in question."

Aggrieved by this order of learned Single
judge special appeal no. 539 of 1999 has been
filed,

8. We have heard Shri R.N. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate for the appellant in special
appeal no. 619 of 1999 and Shri W.H. Khan,
learned counsel appearing for respondent no.
4 and learned standing counsel. We have also
heard Shri Arun Tandon for the appellant in
special appeal no. 539 of 1999 and Shri K.R.
Bajpai and learned standing counsel for the
respondents.

9. After hearing counsel for the parties, in
our opinion, the short but interesting question
which is required to be determined in these
appeals is as to whether an order of
appointment could be legally issued in favour
of the candidate shown at serial no.1 in the
panel after she had attained the age of
superannuation. The facts are not much in
dispute in both the aforesaid cases. For
answering the aforesaid legal question it is
necessary to consider the nature of right to
continue in the office even after attaining the
age of superannuation under regulation 21 of
chapter of the Regulations framed under the
Intermediate Education Act. The regulation
21, which is in Hindi, is being reproduced
Below;

8"21.

 6 ‚ ž
_ Y [ Y‚ ^ % (
 Y‚ ^ % (
L O [‚

% (· ž6 ¡…‚ 1⁄4 % ( ¡Y ‹ „ ž ‹ „ ž F »0

‚ ¡Q ¡% (‘ © 6 ‚ ž

_ Y [ Y‚ ^ % ( O ‹ Y‚ ^ % ( % ( ^ ‚ ž% 'L ¡Y ‹ „ ž ‹ ‚

9 o ž ¿… 9 ±[ % (» · Y‚ · 1⁄4 ¡% (‘ © ¡L ¡O % ( » ^ EL F¿ L »

 ‘ » ‘ Q % ( » 8 »E% (… 9 } ¡% ( ‹ F ‘‹ ‚  ‘ »‹ ¡‹ ‘L …K [

o »[

 » F»L ¡o ¡- L ‘ ±6 [ ^ [ » ¡Y ‹ „ ž ‹ ‚ % ( © ¡L ¡O ‘ »

· F ^ ±‹ ž Q» Q1⁄4 9 ±[
L % ( ‘ »‹ ¡‹ ‘L …K ‘‹ ‚ · »‹ _ Q [

 ¡% (‚ ‚ ‘ · = 9 ‚ »0 L ¡% ( 2 ©„· ‹ % (  % (» ^ … [L

9 o ž · 1⁄4 _ ¡L ‘O [ 1⁄4 % ( © %‚ ‹

‘O F » ‘ % (» ‘ % (» ¡L ¡…% 'L

‘ »‹ ¡‹ ‘L …K % (»‹ o [F a ¡‹ ¡ „@ Q » · 1⁄4 _ Q [ ¡% (‚

9 ‘ % (»0 9 » … 9‚ ‘ …% ( … X … ¡[ Y ž ¡…L % ( © 9 ‚

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"

10. From the perusal of the aforesaid
regulation 21 it is apparent that the object
behind
granting
automatic
extension
of
service up to the end of academic session is to
protect the academic interest of the students of
the institution. But for such arrangement there
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
52
could be absence of teacher during the
academic session which may cause loss to the
students as the management may not be able
to
make
arrangement
so
swiftly.
The
regulation itself contemplates that during
summer vacation alternative arrangement
could be made for the next academic session
commencing from 1st July. Thus, it is the
benefit conferred on the teacher in the interest
of students and the institution and it does not
create any vested right or lien against the post.
The Division Bench in the case of R.L. Prasad
vs. State of U.P. and others, 1987 AWC 1314
after considering the legal position in respect
of such extension of service held under :-

"We respectfully agree with the decision
given in the case of D.N. Dhar (supra). The
mere
fact
that
after
the
date
of
superannuation
an
extension
has
been
granted under the regulations to the teachers
in the interest of students, no vested right is
created in the teachers to continue in service
till a particular date."

11. From the aforesaid discussions it is
clear that once a teacher has attained the age
of superannuation, in other words age of 60
years or 58 years, as the case may be he has
no vested right to continue in service. The
order of appointment, thus, could not be
issued in favour of such teacher though
selected for the post by the commission, after
attaining the age of superannuation. In our
opinion, the educational authorities as well as
committee of management were not justified
in issuing the letter of appointment in favour
of teacher for the post of principal who had
already attained the age of superannuation.
Under no provision of the Act or the
Regulations such action can be justified as the
panel became ineffective and it was not
required to be implemented in respect of
candidate who had already attained the age of
superannuation. The only step required by the
authorities of the education department and
the committee of management was to issue
the letter of appointment in favour of the next
candidate shown in the order of preference.

12. The submission of learned counsel for
the appellant is that on the letter of
appointment issued in favour of the candidate
shown
at
serial
no.1
in
the
panel
recommended by the commission, the panel
exhausted and it could not be used for giving
appointment to the next candidate mentioned
in the panel in order of preference. In our
opinion, the submission cannot be accepted
for more than one reason. Firstly, as discussed
above, after the teacher attained the age of
superannuation a letter of appointment could
not be issued by the management and this
exercise of issuing letter of appointment in
favour of such teacher was futile exercise and
void ab initio and could not affect the panel
in any manner. This Court in the case of
Kishori Raman Shiksha Samiti, Mathura vs.
Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra,
(1994) 1 UPLBEC 248 considered in detail
the circumstances in which the panel shall
survive for the benefit of next candidate
shown in the order of preference. The relevant
paragraph 11 of the judgment is being
reproduced below:-

"11. Thus for ascertaining the true
legislative intent the meaning of the words has
to be understood with the context and
reference in which the provisions have been
made. Sub-section (5) of Section 11th of the
Act contains the provision dealing with
situation which has given rise to the present
dispute. There is no dispute so far as first
situation contemplated under sub Section (5)
of Section 11 of the Act is concerned and if
the candidate failed to join the institution
within the time allowed or even within such
extended time which the management may
allow in this behalf, the authorities could
direct
management
to
issue
letter
of
appointment in favour of candidate mentioned
at second place in panel. However, so far as
the second situation where such candidate is
otherwise not available for appointment as a
1ALL] C/M, J.S.R. K. Inter College & another V. Joint Director of Education & others

53
teacher, is material for resolving the present
controversy. The scheme and object for which
Section 11 of the Act exists in the Statute
book is to make available the selected
candidate for appointment on the post of
principal or Teacher in educational institution.
The aforesaid provision or sub Section (5) the
phrase " where such candidate is other wise
not available for appointment as such teacher"
contains some words of very wide meaning
and also some words of narrow meaning. The
words " other wise not available" have very
wide meaning, meaning, covering all kinds of
situation including death and other physical
injury which may render candidate not
available to the institution for appointment as
teacher. However, the word "appointment"
contains narrow meaning. The question is
whether the word" appointment" used in the
aforesaid phrase should be given its plain
meaning or it should also be given a wider
meaning. The maxim "noscitur a sodis" will
have to be applied in such circumstances to
ascertain correct legislative intent, which
means that the meaning of word should be
judged by the company it keeps. In my
opinion, in sub Section (5) as the word
'appointment' denotes to make available for
the work of teaching, and as it has been used
with words 'other wise not available,' having
for wide meaning it should also be given and
understood, in wider sense so as to include
situation where candidate is not available for
work as teacher. This phrase thus may be
interpreted and construed so as to cover even
the situation where the teacher is not available
to work even after appointment and joining
the post on account of death etc. Such
interpretation can be given to the aforesaid
phrase without causing any violence to the
scheme and object of the Act and the context
and reference in which it has been used.

13. If the present controversy is considered
in the light of the aforesaid judgment the
phrase 'where such candidate is other wise not
available for appointment as such teacher',
shall cover the situation where the candidate
attains the age of superannuation and as the
candidate shown at serial no.1 could not be
made available for appointment for the reason
of her attaining the age of superannuation the
only
course
open
could
be
to
offer
appointment to the next candidate mentioned
in the panel. The aforesaid view was
confirmed by the Division Bench in special
appeals reported in (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1320.
Paragraph 13 of the judgment is being
reproduced below :-
 "13. Looking to the over all facts and
circumstances of the case, specially the fact
that Smt. Kusum Srivastava died within five
days of her joining and that the name of Smt.
Zubairi finds place at Serial no. 2 in the panel
which was prepared for the same post, we do
not think that it is a fit case where we should
exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India on purely technical
grounds which have been raised to thwart the
orders passed by education authorities to
deprive Smt. Zubairi of the right to work as
principal of the College. The affect of
accepting the contention raised by the
appellant would be that the institution would
continue to be headed by an adhoc or
officiating principal for a long period who
would be appointed at the sweet will of the
management and such an appointment would
not be conducive for maintaining proper
academic atmosphere in the institution. An
institution is run for imparting education to
large body of students and it is their interest
which is supreme and not the remote chance
of a lecturer to work as principal."

14. It is also not disputed that aforesaid
judgments of this Court were challenged
before Hon'ble Supreme Court but Special
Leave petition was rejected by the Apex
Court. The judgment of Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Nagar Palika Inter
College, Jaunpur vs. Dr. Havaldar Singh and
others, 1996 (1) ESC 252 (Allahabad) and the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Uma Kant vs. Bhika Lal Jain and
others, ( 1992) 1 SCC 106 may also be quoted
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
54
with advantage Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Uma Kant (supra) held in para 7 as
under :-
"7 xxxxxxxxxxx It is not in dispute that the
main list and the reserve list prepared by the
Selection Committee on June 20, 1989 were
approved by the Syndicate. We agree with the
contention of the university that a reserve list
is always prepared to meet the contingency of
anticipated or future vacancies caused on
account of resignation, retirement, promotion
of otherwise. This is done in view of the fact
that it takes a long time in constituting a fresh
Selection
Committee
which
has
a
cumbersome procedure and in order to avoid
adhoc appointments keeping in view the
interest
of
the
student
community.
Xxxxxxxxxxx"

15. Thus, the contention raised on behalf
of the appellant considered from every angle
cannot be accepted. In the present case it is
undisputed that the panel prepared and
notified by the commission on 15.4.1997
could not be given effect on account of
various interim orders passed by this Court in
writ petitions. Only after the judgment dated
6.1.1998 the authorities could initiate action
for implementation of the panel under Section
11 of the Act. Before the steps could be taken
the candidate mentioned at serial no. 1 in the
panel in both the cases, had already attained
the age of superannuation. Thus, the only
course open was to offer appointment to the
candidate next in the order.

16. For the reasons stated above, the
special no. 619 of 1999 filed by the committee
of management and the manager has no merit
and is accordingly dismissed. Respondent
no.1, Joint Director of Education, 1st Region,
Meerut, respondent no. 2, District Inspector of
Schools,
Meerut
and
committee
of
management shall take immediate steps to
appoint Smt. Shashi Sharma as the principal
of the college for which she was selected and
recommended by the commission.

17. So far as special appeal no. 539 of
1999 is concerned, it is not disputed that Smt.
Madhu Chaurasia was considered by the
commission for appointment as principal as
senior teacher but was not selected. Smt.
Santosh Khurana, admittedly, attained the
age of superannuation on 15.12.1998. Thus,
the appellant, Smt. Saroj Yadav selected and
recommended by the Commission and shown
at serial no. 2 in the panel became entitled for
appointment and her appointment could not
be stayed at the instance of Smt. Madhu
Chaurasia in view of the order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court has passed in Special Leave
petition no 19035- 38 of 1998, and 19178 of
1998. The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court
reads as under :-

"ORDER"
Issue notice.

Mr. E.C. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel
accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/
Caveator in S.L.P. (c) Nos./ 19035-38,19178
& 20225 of 1998.

Three weeks time is granted to the
respondents to file counter affidavit. Two
weeks there after is granted to learned counsel
for the petitioners to file rejoinder List in the
last week of January, 1999.

It is specified that all those petitioners
whose names were sent to the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Commission and who
were not found fit and were not selected are
not being granted any interim relief. The
appointment, if any made, in the meantime in
pursuance of the recommendation of the
commission, shall be subject to the ultimate
decision of these S.L.Ps.

It is also clarified that adhoc principal
working in colleges for which no selected
candidate has been made available by the
commission shall be allowed to continue until
further
orders."
1ALL] H.S. Bhatnagar V. In the matter of property of Shri Jyoti Swaroop Bhatnagar

55

18. In view of the aforesaid order of
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
Smt.
Madhu
Chaurasia was not entitled for any interim
order from this Court. As she has not been
selected by the commission she has no right to
resist the claim of Smt. Saroj Yadav who has
been
selected
and
recommended
for
appointment as principal of S.S.D. Balika
Inter College, Lal Kurti, Meerut. The special
appeal no 539 of 1999 is accordingly allowed.
The order dated 23.7.1999 passed by the
learned Single Judge is set aside. Respondent
no. 2 District Inspector of Schools, Meerut,
respondent no. 3, Joint Director of Education
1st Region, Meerut and respondent no. 5,
committee of management, S.S.D. Balika
Inter College, Lal Kurti, Meerut are directed
to give appointment to Smt. Saroj Yadav
without any further delay.

19. However, in both the appeals there
will be no order as to costs.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF 6XEVWLWXWLRQ $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R
RI
,Q
7HVWDPHQWDU\ VXLW 1R RI

+6 %KDWQDJDU
«3ODLQWLII

,Q WKH PDWWHU RI SURSHUW\ RI 6KUL -\RWL
6ZDURRS %KDWQDJDU

&RXQVHO IRU $SSHOODQW
0U $MLW .XPDU

&RXQVHOV IRU 5HVSRQGHQWV
0U 9LQLW 6DUDQ
0U 5. 5DMZDQVKL

,QGLDQ 6XFFHVVLRQ $FW 6HFWLRQ
3UREDWH FDQ EH JUDQWHG RQO\ WR WKH SHUVRQ
ZKR KDV EHHQ QDPHG XQGHU WKH ZLOO XQGHU
VHFWLRQ RI WKH 6XFFHVVLRQV $FW ,Q FDVH
WKH ([HFXWRU KDV QRW EHHQ DSSRLQWHG WKH
OHWWHUV RI $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ LV WR EH JUDQWHG WR
DQ
XQLYHUVDO
RU
UHVLGXDU\
OHJDWHH
XQGHU
VHFWLRQ RI WKH $FW
+HOG
7KH SUREDWH LV JUDQWHG RQO\ WR DQ H[HFXWRU
DSSRLQWHG E\ WKH ZLOO DV SURYLGHG XQGHU
VHFWLRQ RI WKH $FW ,Q FDVH WKH H[HFXWRU
KDV
QRW
EHHQ
DSSRLQWHG
WKH
OHWWHUV
RI
DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ
LV
WR
EH
JUDQWHG
WR
DQ
XQLYHUVDO RU UHVLGXDU\ OHJDWHH XQGHU VHFWLRQ
 RI WKH $FW ,Q FDVH WKH SHUVRQ ZKR KDG
DSSOLHG IRU SUREDWHOHWWHUV RI DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ
GLHV WKHUH DUH WZR FRXUVHV RSHQ HLWKHU WKH
SURFHHGLQJV EH GURSSHG RU SHUPLWWHG WR EH
FRQWLQXHG E\ D SHUVRQ ZKR VKDOO RWKHUZLVH
EH
HQWLWOHG
IRU
SUREDWHOHWWHUV
RI
DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 3DUD

By the Court

1. This is an application for deletion of the
name of Sri Hemendra Swaroop Bhatnagar,
the plaintiff and substitute the name of M.S.
Bhatnagar in his place and there is a further
prayer to substitute the name of Satyendra
Kumar Bhatnagar also in addition to M.S.
Bhatnagar.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are, that Jyoti
Swarup Bhatnagar had no issue. He had one
brother Har Swarup Bhatnagar. Har Swarup
Bhatnagar expired in the year 1923 leaving
behind him five sons namely Gyan Swarup
Bhatnagar, Sachida Nand Bhatnagar, Brahm
Swarup
Bhatnagar,
Brijendra
Swarup
Bhatnagar and Hemendra Swarup Bhatnagar.
Hamendra
Swarup
Bhatnagar
filed
testamentary petition no. 13 of 1984 for grant
of probate/letters of administration in the
matter of goods and property of deceased
Jyoti Swarup Bhatnagar on the allegation that
he had executed a Will on 22.4.1920 which
provided that till the life time of Har Swarup
he will administer the property of Sri Jyoti
Swarup Bhatnagar in accordance with the
testament dated 22.4.1920 and after his death,
the property shall be administered by the sons