# Court in Ved Prakash Tripathi v. State of

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 148
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-02-20
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/court-in-ved-prakash-tripathi-v-state-of-39836
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2All] Dvijendra Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others

148
be charged for murder, and if found guilty
sentenced to death. The 'encounter'
philosophy is a criminal philosophy, and
all policemen must know this. Trigger
happy policemen who think they can kill
innocent
people
in
the
name
of
'encounter' and get away with it should
know that the gallows await them.

There is no force in this petition. It is
dismissed.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent
to the Director General of Police, U.P.
forthwith and the Director General will
send copy of this judgment to all I.G.,
D.I.G., S.S.P. and S.P.s in the State with
the stern direction to comply with this
judgment.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7('
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
 $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

'YLMHQGUD 6LQJK DQG RWKHUV«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL $VKRN .KDUH
6KUL $GLW\D .XPDU 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 6. 6LQJK

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

±
DSSRLQWPHQW ± 6HOHFWLRQ IRU WKH 3RVW RI
$VVLVWDQW± 3URVHFXWLRQ 2IILFHU FRPSOHWHG
± DOO FDQGLGDWHV MRLQHG EXW SHUVRQV
RXW RI WKHP UHVLJQHG ± ZLWKLQ RQH \HDU±
SHWLWLRQHU EHLQJ ORZHU LQ UDQN FDQ EH
DSSRLQWHG
+HOG ± 3DUD
,Q RXU RSLQLRQ WKH UDWLR RI WKDW GHFLVLRQ
ZLOO DSSO\ WR WKH IDFWV RI WKH SUHVHQW
FDVH 7KH RQO\ GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKDW
FDVH DQG WKH SUHVHQW FDVH LV WKDW LQ FLYLO
PLVF ZULW SHWLWLRQ QR RI
IRXU YDFDQFLHV UHPDLQHG RQ DFFRXQW RI
QRQMRLQLQJ
RI
IRXU
VHOHFWHG
SHUVRQ
ZKHUHDV LQ WKH SUHVHQW FDVH DOO WKH
SHUVRQ VHOHFWHG MRLQWHG EXW ILYH SHUVRQV
ODWHU UHVLJQHG ZLWKLQ RQH \HDU RI WKH OLIH
RI
WKH
SDQHO
,Q
RXU
RSLQLRQ
WKLV
GLVWLQFWLRQ ZLOO PDNH QR GLIIHUHQFH DQG
KHQFH WKH UDWLR RI WKH GHFLVLRQ RI 9HG
3UDNDVK 7ULSDWKL¶V FDVH ZLOO DSSO\ WR WKLV
FDVH DOVR
&DVH ODZ UHOLHG RQ
:3 RI GHFLGHG RQ

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned standing counsel.

2. Petitioners have prayed that a
mandamus
should
be
issued
for
appointing them as Assistant Prosecuting
Officers. It appears that an advertisement
was issued on 23.12.1998 for the said post
vide
Annexure
-1.
The
petitioners
appeared in the said examination and they
passed in the written test and then they
appeared in the interview. The final result
was
prepared
vide
Annexure
-
3
containing the names of 99 persons, who
were selected against 99 vacancies.

3. It has been submitted that five of
these 99 persons joined their posts but
they resigned within one year of the life
of the list and hence five persons lower
down in the select list should have been
offered appointments on those posts.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001

149
on a Division Bench decision of this
Court in Ved Prakash Tripathi vs. State of
U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.
32077
of
2000,
decided
on
20.12.2000. In our opinion, the ratio of
that decision will apply to the facts of the
present case. The only difference between
that case and the present case is that in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32077 of
2000 four vacancies remained on account
of non-joining of four selected persons,
whereas in the present case all the persons
selected joined but five persons later
resigned within one year of the life of the
panel. In our opinion, this distinction will
make no difference and hence the ratio of
the decision of Ved Prakash Tripathi's
case will apply to this case also. Hence
we issue a mandamus to the U.P. Public
Service
Commission,
Allahabad
to
recommend the names of five persons in
accordance with merit as per the select list
and those, person will be appointed
forthwith.

The writ petition is, accordingly
allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 2 %+$77 -
7+( +21·%/( 2 %+$77 -

&UO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6KUL 3UDNDVK 6LQJK DQRWKHU«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 6XSHULQWHQGHQW RI
3ROLFH DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL =DIDU $EEDG
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
$*$
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH ± D
SHUXVDO RI WKH ),5 VKRZV WKDW WKH
DOOHJDWLRQV DUH WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHU 1R
9LMD\
3UDWDS
6LQJK
LV
UXQQLQJ
DQ
DOOHJHGO\ QRQH[LVWHQW 6FKRRO DORQJZLWK
KLV VRQ 3HWLWLRQHU 1R 6KUL 3UDNDVK
6LQJK
DQG
WKH\
KDYH
HPEH]]OHG
5V RI WKH 6FKRORUVKLS IHH RI
6FKHGXOHG FDVWH VWXGHQWV KHOG LQ SDUD

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the
Petitioner
and
learned
Government
Counsel.

2. This case discloses a shocking
state of affairs as it shows what is
happening in our country in large scale.

3. The Petitioner has challenged the
impugned
F.I.R.
dated
20.2.2001
Annexure 1 to the writ Petition in case
crime no. 43 of 2001 under Section 467,
468, 471, 420, 409 I.P.C. police station
Meh Nagar, district Azamgarh. The
aforesaid F.I.R. reads as follows:

"

% ( ‚ žo ‚ ¡9 o ‘ · 9 % (o‚ K ¡Y % ( … © 9 · 0 I

^ M % ( ¥}o % ( ¥}o % ( ‘ %

 ( ¥}o % (

$^ ( ž …/

/

 ¡Q[ % (

O [ Y‚ ) O [ · »F[ 0 … 9 · 0 I ‹ 0 L % (…[ F¿ ¡% (

 ¡9 o ¡‹ W o ‚ ¡[ … ©) % ( % ( ‚ žo ‚ 9 · 0 I % (» ^ M

Œ (· % ( 8 M ‹ ¶ ¡N /

 ¡Q[ % (

X …

 J © 0 » ¡‹ [Q ¢‘ F · ¡‹ … · ^ … L O ‘ F ©Q

…3 [ O ¢‘ F · ¡‹ % ( Q ©^ … 9 · 0 I % (»

 [ ‘ ± ¡6 L 9 ¡L % (» 8 M 1⁄4 % ( © ‘ ±6 © _ ¡L F‘L ) ¡…L

% (…L » F$ Y »F‘L ) ¡…L % (» % ( ‚ žo ‚ % ( » ^ o }Y

% (…

‚ © 0 ‚ © O ©
 ¡9 ‘ % (» Y … ^ … ^ … »% 'L ¡‹ W o ‚

% ( » Œ (·  ‚ ± ^ © ž ¢‘ F ^ … - L ‘ 

 · 1⁄4 L O ‘  · -‚  - E % (3 …

 9 · 0 I · 1⁄4 - L ‘  · 1⁄4 | »9 © 0 ‚ © O ©

- KE
 ¡‹ % ( ‘

 ¡Y % ( … ©
 ¡} o ¡Q‚
0 9
 ^

 ¡9 o ¡Y % ( … © ¡[ … ©) % ( 9 · 0 I ‘ » ^ … »% 'L Q »[ 1⁄4

 ¡‹ W o ‚ ¥‘L L‹ F ©[ ^ ‚ » 0 ‚ »
 ^ … »% 'L ¡‹ W o ‚ 1⁄4 · 1⁄4