# Chandrajeet Ram v. The State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 680 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2009-08-11 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41029 of 2009 - **Bench:** S.U. Khan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrajeet-ram-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-another-41419 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III Reg. 101-Appointment on class IV post-procedure for appointmentin absence of specific provision-by order dated 1.6.01 issued by Director-same procedure of U.P. Direct Recruitment on Group D posts Rule 1985 are applicableby virtue of U.P. Direct Recruitment inclusion of Nominee of District Magistrate participation of Nominee of D.M. in selection committee-held mandatory otherwise constitution of selection committee itself irregularDirection for fresh selection issued. Held: Para 9 & 12 It may also be clarified that so far as the Rules of 2006 are concerned, the same made the nominee of District Magistrate is the Selection Committee for Group 'D' posts mandatory the said amendment has to be read along with the Rules of 1985 which have been incorporated by reference under Government order as per the letter of the Director 1.6.2001 for appointment on class III and class IV post in Recognized Intermediate Colleges. There is no challenge to the competence of State to issue the direction as per the letter of the director at 9.6.2000 in the present writ petition. ## Text 680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that relaxation must be deemed to have been granted cannot be accepted. " "The discretionary jurisdiction could be exercised for relaxation of age provided for in the rules and within the four corners thereof. " 15. Something which is not conferred by rules cannot be given by means of a judicial order since it would amount to direct the respondents to act in the teeth of the statutory rules which is impermissible, therefore, this request is also rejected. 16. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41029 of 2009 Chandrajeet Ram ...Petitioner Versus The State of U.P. & another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: Sri N.P. Pandey S.C. U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rule 1956Rule-109-A-Mutation of name-order alleged to be passed by consolidation authorities prior to 40 years-petitioner kept mum during 35 years-heldprovisions of Rule 109-A utterly misused-can not be invoked after notification of section 52-court expressed its great concern-and warned the District authorities to be more vigilant in future-petition dismissed. Held: Para 3 It is also the experience of the court that Rule 109-A is being utterly mis-used. It is not meant for rampant use. It cannot be invoked after notification under Section 52 of the Act to enforce orders passed before the notification. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.) 1. The court is daily coming across such matters where people come out with certified copies of orders alleged to have been passed 25 to 40 years before by Consolidation courts and start asserting that the order must be mutated. In most of the cases such certified copies are forged. In normal course of things if an order is passed by Consolidation court in favour of a person then either it is implemented forthwith in normal course or he will immediately take steps for getting that mutated in the revenue records. A wait of more than 12 years always raises a grave doubt regarding the genuineness of the order sought to be enforced. In most of such cases certified copies of non existent orders are manufactured after the loss/weeding out of original records. 2. In the instant case the fantastic argument of the petitioner is that on 21.7.1973 some order was passed by the consolidation court in his favour, however, due to negligence of consolidation authorities the said order of 1973 was not mutated in the revenue records. For the said purpose for the first time petitioner filed application on 2 All] Chandrajeet Ram V. The State of U.P. and another 681 2.2.2008 i.e. exactly after 35 years. If the petitioner had waited for one more year, limitation to file suit for recovery of possession would have expired thrice. In such matters First Information Report must be lodged against such claimants for manufacturing the documents otherwise this menace would not be checked. However, the court is not issuing any particular direction in respect of the petitioner of this writ petition. The consolidation authorities/courts and other revenue authorities/courts of each district particularly Collector should be vigilant in future. 3. It is also the experience of the court that Rule 109-A is being utterly mis-used. It is not meant for rampant use. It cannot be invoked after notification under Section 52 of the Act to enforce orders passed before the notification. 4. During dictation of this judgment learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed. However, the court is not inclined to grant that prayer. 5. The court is not at all convinced that any order was passed in favour of petitioner on 21.7.1973 hence this writ petition is dismissed. 6. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Shri N.P. Pandey, learned standing counsel. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39558 of 2009 Hemant Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Vashistha Tiwari Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chapter III Reg. 101-Appointment on class IV post-procedure for appointmentin absence of specific provision-by order dated 1.6.01 issued by Director-same procedure of U.P. Direct Recruitment on Group D posts Rule 1985 are applicableby virtue of U.P. Direct Recruitment inclusion of Nominee of District Magistrate participation of Nominee of D.M. in selection committee-held mandatory otherwise constitution of selection committee itself irregularDirection for fresh selection issued. Held: Para 9 & 12 It may also be clarified that so far as the Rules of 2006 are concerned, the same made the nominee of District Magistrate is the Selection Committee for Group 'D' posts mandatory the said amendment has to be read along with the Rules of 1985 which have been incorporated by reference under Government order as per the letter of the Director 1.6.2001 for appointment on class III and class IV post in Recognized Intermediate Colleges. There is no challenge to the competence of State to issue the direction as per the letter of the director at 9.6.2000 in the present writ petition.