# Chandra Prakash Ojha v. The District Judge, Bareilly and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 232
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Application/Petition No. 844 of 2004
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Mrs. P. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-prakash-ojha-v-the-district-judge-bareilly-and-others-40328
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-O. 17 R.1Adjournment-not more than three to be
granted in a suit Adjournment of a case
can not be claimed as a matter of right.

Held: Para 5
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Chandra Prakash Ojha V. The District Judge, Bareilly and others 233
It may be mentioned that under Order
17, Rule 1 C.P.C. it is specifically
provided that no adjournment shall be
granted more than three times during
hearings of suits. In our opinion even
these 3 adjournments cannot be claimed
as of right, as adjournment is in the
discretion of the Court, and cannot be
claimed as of right.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 2 SCC 45

## Text

232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
w.p.m. at subsequent stage. For this
purpose
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
has
relied
{(1994)
3
UPLBEC-1963 (Ved Prakash Sagar and
others Vs U.P. Financial Corporation and
another) } where the services of the writ
petitioners were terminated for not
achieving 40 w.p.m of typing as a
condition provided in the terms of
appointment embodied in pursuance to
the advertisement in recruitment as such
the termination of the writ petitioners
were found justifiable.

5. According to learned counsel for
the petitioner the decision of this court
(Single Judge) in Ved Prakash Sagar
(supra) was passed as the writ petitioners
were the typist, and their main work was
typing, and they were expected to
maintain certain standard of typing as an
essential condition required in service as
such verdict of Ved Prakash (supra) is not
referable and applicable in the present
case as writ petitioner was appointed as
clerk whose main work was not of typist
only and the proficiency in typing is
additional need.

6. I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner, I find that petitioners were
earlier appointed as daily wagers and had
achieved the proficiency of 25 w.p.m. at
that stage and the selection committee
after
acknowledging
this
fact
recommended the cases of petitioners and
the petitioners were given appointment of
as a clerk i.e. since they were above
Intermediate and were having proficiency
in 25 w.p.m. typing. Keeping in view the
recommendations
of
the
selection
committee they were regularised also.
Now at later stage a condition of 25
w.p.m. in typing was not necessary to be
imposed afresh in the regularisation order
as the regularisation was only made
keeping in view of the performance
experience
merits
and
the
recommendation
of
the
selection
committee.
In
view
of
the
above
observations I find that the decision of
Ved Prak Sagar (supra) as referred by
respondents is not applicable in the
present facts and circumstance and in
view of the above observation the order
dated 7.10.1997 is not legally sustainable,
therefore, it is set aside and the petitioner
are to be treated as regular employee and
their termination on the ground of not
achieving the typing test of 25 w.p.m. in
Hindi on the ground of change in service
condition of the petitioner is illegal not
justifiable. In view of the above the writ
petition is allowed. No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Application/Petition No. 844 of 2004

Chandra Prakash Ojha
...Petitioner
Versus
The District Judge, Bareilly and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pranav Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-O. 17 R.1Adjournment-not more than three to be
granted in a suit Adjournment of a case
can not be claimed as a matter of right.

Held: Para 5
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Chandra Prakash Ojha V. The District Judge, Bareilly and others 233
It may be mentioned that under Order
17, Rule 1 C.P.C. it is specifically
provided that no adjournment shall be
granted more than three times during
hearings of suits. In our opinion even
these 3 adjournments cannot be claimed
as of right, as adjournment is in the
discretion of the Court, and cannot be
claimed as of right.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 2 SCC 45

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

1. This petition furnishes a typical
instance of the alarming state of affairs
prevailing in the subordinate judiciary in
this State.

2. The petitioner had filed an
application under Section 263 of the
Succession Act praying for cancellation
of the order granting probate. In this case
altogether 90 dates were fixed by the
District Judge and A.D.J., Bareilly, out of
which 43 dates were fixed for final
hearing. In our opinion this reveals gross
negligence and utter callousness on the
part of the subordinate courts. Cases are
supposed to be disposed off expeditiously,
but it appears that many Judges harass the
litigant public by granting adjournments
again and again. Whenever the litigant
goes to court he finds that another date
has been fixed. In the present case 90
dates have been fixed and yet the case has
not
proceeded.
Annexure-3
to
the
affidavit in support of this application is
copy of the order sheet showing the
orders passed on these 90 dates. Many of
these orders show that the case was
adjourned because the lawyers were on
strike.

3. We have also been informed that
in many district courts certain lawyers do
not allow the Court to function. Many
district court function only 60-65 days in
a year. Some members of the bar are
habitual of disturbing the functioning of
the Court.

4. We have also been informed that
often on the mere statement of some
members of the bar that no adverse order
should be passed the cases are adjourned
without any good reason.

5. It may be mentioned that under
Order 17, Rule 1 C.P.C. it is specifically
provided that no adjournment shall be
granted more than three times during
hearings of suits. In our opinion even
these 3 adjournments cannot be claimed
as of right, as adjournment is in the
discretion of the Court, and cannot be
claimed as of right.

6. In our opinion this state of affairs
cannot be tolerated any further. The
judiciary exists for serving the public, and
not for serving lawyers or Judges. The
judiciary is accountable to the public, and
it is the duty of the Courts to decide cases
expeditiously.

7. We therefore dispose off this
petition with the direction to the court
concerned to decide the application under
Section 263 of the Act within two months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order before him in
accordance with law, failing which
disciplinary action will be taken against
the Judge concerned.

8. The Registrar General of this
Court will communicate this order to the
District Judge, Bareilly forthwith and also
to all the District Judges in the State of
U.P., who shall in turn communicate it to
all the judicial officers in their district.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
The
Registrar
General
shall
also
communicate copy of this order to all
Presidents and Secretaries of District Bar
Associations in the State, and to the
Chairman, U.P. Bar Council.

9. We warn all the officers of the
subordinate judiciary that disciplinary
action shall be taken against those Judges
who are avoiding expeditious disposal of
cases, and who grant adjournments lightly
and unnecessarily. The public is fed up
with the delays in deciding cases, and will
not tolerate continuation of this state of
affairs.

10. We further direct that judicial
officers shall not adjourn cases merely
because the lawyers are abstaining from
work or are on strike. The Supreme Court
has held that it is illegal for lawyers to go
on strike, vide Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal
v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45.
We therefore direct that judges in the
subordinate judiciary will pass orders in
the cases fixed before them even in the
absence of lawyers (unless the case has
been adjourned by the Court for some
good and strong reason on a lawyers
application), and if the lawyers obstruct
the functioning of the Court the District
Judge will call the police to stop this. The
people of the State are fed up of lawyers
strikes, and in our opinion, rightly so.
Enough is enough.

11. List this case again before us on
16.3.2004 by which time compliance
report shall be sent to this Court by the
District Judge, Bareilly and other District
Judges in the State. While we have
disposed off this petition it shall be listed
again before us so that we can monitor
compliance of the directions given by us.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 329 of 1998

Jalal Ahmad

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.P. Srivastava
Sri Vashistha Tiwari
Sri H.R. Mishra, S.C.
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226- Writ
Jurisdiction-scope-Judicial
review
of
administrative
decision-Interference
only
in
case
of
arbitrariness-No
interference with finding of fact-Writ lies
where there is error of law apparent on
face of record.

Held: Paras 4,5 & 6

It is well settled that a writ lies when
there is error of law apparent on the face
of the record. In writ jurisdiction this
Court cannot interfere with findings of
fact. Whether there was corruption or
favouritism was a question of fact and
the learned Single Judge should not have
interfered with the findings of fact in this
connection.

The Court cannot sit in appeal over
administrative decisions. It can only
interfere when there is arbitrariness in
the Wednesbury sense. The modern
trend points to judicial restraint with
respect to administrative decisions.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in