# Chandra Singh Dhama v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 1097 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2009-12-05 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66072 of 2009 - **Bench:** A.P. Sahi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-singh-dhama-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41389 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate Sri Ravi Shanker Prasad, (Addl.C.S.C.) Sri V.P. Varshney. Sri V.P. Mathur Sri Siddharth Nandan. Sri Siddharth Khare Sri A.K. Mishra Sri Saroj Yadav U.P. Public Works Department Group 'B' Civil Engineering Service Rules 2004Rule 15 (2)-selection of Civil Engineerheld on basis of interview-petitioner participated but fail selection of validity challenged on ground in electrical and Mechanical Engineering selection is mad after written examination and interviewno national basis to adopt separate mode-after participation in selectionunsuccessful candidate has not right to question the made of selection-even if constitutional validity can not be ## Text 3 All] Chandra Singh Dhama V. State of U.P. and others 1097 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66072 of 2009 Chandra Singh Dhama ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Practice & Procedure-suspension of conviction-can not be treated innocence of petitioner-petitioner working as Class IVth employee retired on 31.7.07claimed retiring benefits-on basis of stay order granted in pending criminal Appeal-held-while admitting Criminal Appeal-suspension of conviction being contrary to the provision of section 389 Cr.P.C. can not be treated be passed by exercising inherent powers in compelling circumstances-concern authority directed to take appropriate decision in light of observation made by Court. Held: Para 5 & 6 The provision has been considered and explained in this regard in several cases and two latest decisions are that of Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2007) 2 SCC 574 paragraphs 4 to 6 and in the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs. State of Maharashtra through CBI Bombay reported in (2009) 5 SCC 787 and others where the inherent power of the High Court under the Cr.P.C. has been acknowledged and it has been held that in rare cases such an order for compelling reasons can be passed whereby the conviction itself can be suspended. The High Court in the instant case has not exercised its inherent powers as above and has only suspended the execution of the sentence. Keeping in view the said pronouncement and in the peculiar facts of this case, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the District Inspector of Schools, who shall examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid position of law and pass an appropriate order within 8 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. Case law discussed: (2007) 2 SCC 574, (2009) 5 SCC 787. (Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.) 1. The prayer made is to consider the representation dated 05.10.2009 which has been filed before the District Inspector of Schools praying for release of certain benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he retired as a Class-IV employee on 31.07.2007 and, therefore, he is entitled to his retiral benefits. 2. The petitioner, while in service, was convicted in a criminal case. The said conviction has been questioned by the petitioner in a criminal appeal before this Court which has been admitted on 03.08.2007 and the execution of sentence as against the petitioner has been suspended. 3. On the strength of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was merely impleaded in a criminal case and once the sentence has been suspended by this Court, the natural legal consequence is that the petitioner should be presumed to 1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 be an innocent person and all his benefits should be released. 4. The position in law is that there is no power conferred under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code to stay the conviction itself and it is only the execution of the sentence which can be suspended. The order dated 03.08.2007, a copy whereof is annexure 2 to the writ petition, is inconsonance with the provisions of Section 389 Cr.P.C. 5. The provision has been considered and explained in this regard in several cases and two latest decisions are that of Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2007) 2 SCC 574 paragraphs 4 to 6 and in the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs. State of Maharashtra through CBI Bombay reported in (2009) 5 SCC 787 and others where the inherent power of the High Court under the Cr.P.C. has been acknowledged and it has been held that in rare cases such an order for compelling reasons can be passed whereby the conviction itself can be suspended. The High Court in the instant case has not exercised its inherent powers as above and has only suspended the execution of the sentence. 6. Keeping in view the said pronouncement and in the peculiar facts of this case, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the District Inspector of Schools, who shall examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid position of law and pass an appropriate order within 8 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J. THE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28351 of 2009 And: Civil Misc. Application No. 190089 of 2009 Connected with: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37581 of 2009 Vipin Bihari Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel or the Petitioners: Dr. R.G. Padia, Sr. Advocate, Sri Prakash Padia Sri Vikas Budhwar. Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate Sri Ravi Shanker Prasad, (Addl.C.S.C.) Sri V.P. Varshney. Sri V.P. Mathur Sri Siddharth Nandan. Sri Siddharth Khare Sri A.K. Mishra Sri Saroj Yadav U.P. Public Works Department Group 'B' Civil Engineering Service Rules 2004Rule 15 (2)-selection of Civil Engineerheld on basis of interview-petitioner participated but fail selection of validity challenged on ground in electrical and Mechanical Engineering selection is mad after written examination and interviewno national basis to adopt separate mode-after participation in selectionunsuccessful candidate has not right to question the made of selection-even if constitutional validity can not be