# Chandra Shekhar Singh Yadav & Anr v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 1117
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-08
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 28281 of 1997
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-shekhar-singh-yadav-anr-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-46757
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law-Petitioners
given
temporary
appointment on post of Survey Lekhpalappointment cancelled-so that retrenched
employees of Kaimoor Survey Agency
could
be
absorbed-All
retrenched
employees had already been absorbed
prior to passing of the impugned order-the
basis of cancellation of appointment is
non-existent.

W.P. allowed. (E-7)

## Text

1 All. Chandra Shekhar Singh Yadav & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
1117
consider the antecedents and the suitability
of its employee.

16. Moreover, perusal of all the
connected writ petitions indicates that in the
criminal cases shown to have been pending
against the petitioners, they are facing trial.
The petitioner cannot claim right to continue
in service and the employer, having regard to
the nature of employment as well as other
aspects, has the discretion to terminate his
services. The standard expected of a person
intended to serve in uniformed service is
quite distinct from other services. The
authorities entrusted with the responsibility of
appointing Home Guard, are under duty to
verify the antecedents of a candidate to find
out whether he is suitable for the post of a
Home Guard and so long as the candidate has
not been acquitted in the criminal case, he
cannot be held to be suitable for appointment
to the post of Home Guard.

17. In view of the above, I am of the
opinion that no interference is called for in
the matter.

18. The writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)01ILR A1117
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Writ-A No. 28281 of 1997

Chandra Shekhar Singh Yadav & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K. Mishra, Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Civil
Law-Petitioners
given
temporary
appointment on post of Survey Lekhpalappointment cancelled-so that retrenched
employees of Kaimoor Survey Agency
could
be
absorbed-All
retrenched
employees had already been absorbed
prior to passing of the impugned order-the
basis of cancellation of appointment is
non-existent.

W.P. allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.)

1. To assail correctness of the order
dated 06.11.1996 passed by respondent
no.3-Assistant
Record
Officer
Obra,
District Sonebhadra and circular letter
dated 17.09.1996 issued by respondent
no.1-Secretary & Commissioner Board of
Revenue, U.P. Lucknow (Annexure Nos.5
and 6 respectively), this writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has
been preferred by the petitioners.

2. In a nut-sell, the case of the
petitioners are that the appointment of the
petitioners were made on 11.07.1996 on
temporary basis and petitioners have
reported their duties on 12th July, 1996
(copy whereof is annexed as Annexure
No.3 to the writ petition), which is evident
from the report of Assistant Record Officer
Obra. Thereafter, the petitioners were
started their functioning on the basis of
their appointment letter dated 11.07.1996
on the post of Survey Lekhpal. It is
mentioned in the appointment letter that the
appointment of the petitioners were made
purely on temporary basis and their
services can be terminated at any time by
given one month prior notice. It appears
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that, thereafter, the respondent no.1 has
issued an order on 17.09.1996 by imposing
ban on the appointments and has also
directed to the concerned authority that if
any appointments/ promotions have been
made,
the
same
be
cancelled
with
immediate effect on the ground that certain
persons of dissolved Kaimoor Survey
Agencies
or
declared
surplus.
On
16.10.1995, the Commissioner Varanasi
Division has issued a direction to the
District Magistrate Varanasi and Mirzapur
to give employment of remaining 36
persons belonging to the Kaimoor Survey
Agency. All the persons, who were
remained, have been absorbed and now not
a single employee of Kaimoor Survey
Agency is waiting for appointment. It is
further alleged that on the basis of order
dated 17.09.1996, the Assistant Record
Officer-respondent no.3 terminated the
services of the petitioners by order dated
06.10.1996 on the basis of absorption/reengagement of the employee of the
dissolved Kaimoor Survey Agency, who
have already been engaged and none is
remain for giving employment. It appears
that Kaimoor Survey Agency was operating
in the Division of Varansi for the purpose
of survey but Kaimoor Survey Agency has
been dissolved and its employees declared
surplus. The termination order dated
06.11.1996 refers to a circular letter issued
by Commissioner and Secretary dated
17.09.1996 as also a consequential order
passed by the Record Officer dated
06.11.1996.
Feeling
aggrieved,
the
petitioner have preferred this writ petition
before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the termination order based on
the letter dated 17.09.1996 issued by respondent
no.1-Secretary and Commissioner Board of
Revenue U.P., Lucknow does not exist when
the order of termination was passed. The
impugned termination order has been passed in
violation of principle of natural justice and
without affording any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners, therefore, the impugned order
has been passed in an arbitrary, discriminatory
exercise of powers violating of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It is specifically stated that order
dated 06.11.1996 passed by Assistant Record
Officer have not proceeded by any notice to
show cause to the petitioners, which is against
the U.P. Temporary Government Servants
Rules, 1975.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
further submitted that before passing the said
termination order dated 06.11.1996 as well as
circular letter dated 17.09.1996, neither any
notice or information nor any opportunity of
hearing have been given to the petitioners, thus,
the termination order is illegal and based on no
reason. The impugned order has been passed in
an arbitrary, discriminatory exercise of powers
violating of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment dated 22.04.1998 in Writ
Petition No.37136 of 1996, wherein the Court
quashed the G.O. dated 06.11.1998.

5. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel vehemently opposed the writ
petition by submitting that as per the
appointment of the petitioners, it has been
clearly mentioned that at any time the
services of the petitioners could be
terminated without giving prior notice. He
has further submitted that however there
was no need of giving any notice to the
petitioners, hence, after considering the
legal aspects, the termination orders have
been passed by the Board of Revenue.

6. I have heard Siddharth Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
1 All. Smt. Ummeda Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1119
Standing Counsel for the State and perused
the material available on record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners were
given temporary appointment on the post of
Survey Lekhpal vide appointment letter
dated 11.07.1996 and by the impugned
termination order dated 06.11.1996 the said
appointment/promotion has been cancelled
on the basis of circular dated 17.09.1996
issued by the Board of Revenue directing
the concerned authorities to cancel all
appointments/promotions so that retrenched
employees of Kaimoor Survey Agency
could be absorbed. It has been revered that
all retrenched employees of Kaimoor
Survey Agency had already been absorbed.

8. It appears that all the retrenched
employees of Kaimoor Survey Agency had
already been absorbed prior to passing of
the impugned order. In the circumstances of
the case, therefore, the basis on which the
appointment/promotion of the petitioners
have been cancelled is not non-existent.

9. Subject to the above observations,
the writ petition succeeds and the same is
hereby allowed. The impugned termination
order dated 06.11.1996 (Annexure No.5 to
the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The
petitioners
are
held
entitled
to
consequential benefits.

10. However, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs.
----------

(2021)01ILR A1119
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
Crl. Misc. Appl. u/s 482 No. 34490 of 2015

Smt. Ummeda Fatima ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, Sri S.A. Ansari, Sri
S.I. Jafri

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.,
Sri
Azim
Ahmad
Kazmi,
Sri
Khurshed Alam

A. Criminal Law - Application u/s 482 -
Exercise of inherent jurisdiction - U.P.
Revenue Code: Section 114(c); Land
Revenue Act: Section 34; Criminal Law
Amendment Act: Section 7 - This court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s.
482
Cr.P.C.
is
not
expected
to
meticulously
analyse
the
facts
and
evidence as it is matter of trial to be seen
during trial. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
within the limits. High Court would not embark
upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the
complaint are likely to be established by
evidence or not. (Para 14, 17)

Ends of justice would be better served if
valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing
those appeals rather than entertaining petitions
under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage
which after filed with some oblique motive in
order to circumvent the prescribed procedure,
or to delay the trial which enable to win over
the witness or may disinterested in giving
evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of
Justice. Inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the
tests specifically laid down in the section itself.
(Para 15)

B. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised
in respect of substantive as well as
procedural matters - High Court can exercise
jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It
can do so while exercising other jurisdictions
such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No
formal
application
for
invoking
inherent