# Chandra Pal Singh v. State Public Service Tribunal and others - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 121 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-01-29 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41390 of 2001 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-pal-singh-v-state-public-service-tribunal-and-others-39884 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India- Article 226- Habeas Corpus- even a minor cannot be detained in Government Protective Home against her wishes- petitioner has desired to go with Sunil Kumar. Besides this according to the two medical reports i.e. of the Chief Medical Officer and LLRM. Medical College, Meerut the petitioner is certainly not less than 17 years and she understands her well being and is also capable of considering her future welfare. As such her detention in Government Protective Home, Meerut against her wishes is undesirable and impugned order dated 23.11.1996 passed by the Magistrate directing her ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1All] Chandra Pal Singh V. State Public Service Tribunal and others 121 enquiry report where the finding of fact is that there is no material to show that the record in question had been handed over by T.B. Singh to the petitioner. Hence the Tribunal has clearly made an observation (quoted above) which is baseless. We have therefore to hold that the original record in question has not been handed over by Sri T.B. Singh to the petitioner and there was no material to show that that was done. 6. In view of the above finding of the enquiry officer the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 20.9.2002 as well as the order of the Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax dated 18.10.2000 and order of the Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. dated 19.5.2001 are vitiated in law and are hereby set a side and the impugned orders are quashed. 7. The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be reinstated within a month of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned in accordance with law. He shall also be paid back salary from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement and such payment shall be made within two months of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.1.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41390 of 2001 Syed Vequar Ahmad ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri I.N. Singh Sri Ajay Yadav Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- service law- promotion- denied- due to adverse entry- representation against pendingheld promotion can not be denied- G.O. Dated 04.05.95 relied on. Held- Para 4 It has been admitted in paragraph 10 of the same that in view of G.O. dated 4.5.1995 if a representation is pending against an adverse entry the said adverse entry will not come in the way of promotion. It has also been admitted in paragraph 8 that the entries for 1995-96 have been deleted. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) Heard counsel for parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing that he be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Excise Commissioner. The petitioner is presently Excise Inspector. He was selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission in 1985 and has been http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 working since then. 12 posts of Assistant Excise Commissioner fell vacant in December 2000, which were to be filled in by promotion from Excise Inspectors. The petitioner made a representation vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition requesting for promotion. He was awarded special entry for the calendar year 1990-91 and 1991-92. 3. However, he was not considered for promotion because he was awarded adverse entries for the years 1994-95 vide Annexure 4 the petitioner filed a writ petition, being writ petition no. 15315 of 1996 which is pending in this Court and the impugned adverse entry has been stayed vide order dated 1.5.1996. 4. As regards the two adverse entries for the year 1995-96, dated 10.10.1996 and 24.12.1996, vide Annexures 5 and 6, one was awarded because he did not participate in the meeting of 19.7.1996, and the other because he did not participate in the meeting of 14.12.1996 along with the register. The petitioner made representations against these entries vide Annexure 3. The petitioners' representations against those entries have been allowed and those entries have been quashed, vide orders dated 12.5.2001, Annexure 7 to the petition. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and we have perused the same. It has been admitted in paragraph 10 of the same that in view of G.O. dated 4.5.1995 if a representation is pending against an adverse entry the said adverse entry will not come in the way of promotion. It has also been admitted in paragraph 8 that the entries for 1995-96 have been deleted. 6. Presently there is no material against the petitioner since the adverse entry for 1994-95 has been stayed by this Court. Hence we allow the writ petition and direct that the petitioner shall be considered for promotion as Assistant Excise Commissioner when the next D.P.C. meets. However, this order will be subject to the decision in writ petition no. 15315 of 1996. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.2.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE U.S. TRIPATHI, J. THE HON'BLE D.P. GUPTA, J. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 54624 of 2002 Smt. Shahana @ Shanti ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sarvesh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Mohd. Shabbir A.G.A. Constitution of India- Article 226- Habeas Corpus- even a minor cannot be detained in Government Protective Home against her wishes- petitioner has desired to go with Sunil Kumar. Besides this according to the two medical reports i.e. of the Chief Medical Officer and LLRM. Medical College, Meerut the petitioner is certainly not less than 17 years and she understands her well being and is also capable of considering her future welfare. As such her detention in Government Protective Home, Meerut against her wishes is undesirable and impugned order dated 23.11.1996 passed by the Magistrate directing her