# Devendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 189
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-07
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 966 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43402
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Services Selection Board Act 1982-Section
17
(2)(3)-Petitioner/Appellant
being
selected candidate as principle not allowed
to join in the year 1984-management taken
every conceivable effort to resist the joining
right from filing writ petition and dismissing
as withdrawn-against Civil suit seeking
permanent
injunction
getting
decree
against statutory-protection-total in action
on part of Director under Section 17-failure
to comply such direction being criminal
offence punishable under Section 22 of the
Act-held-appellant not to blamed for failure
on part of statutory authorities-entitled for
salary from the date of initial selectionwithout touching the direction of Single
Judge-director to hold enquiry and take
decision within3 months.
Held: Para-7
There has been a clear failure on the part of
the authorities to enforce their statutory
powers including the power which has been
conferred upon the Director under Section
17(3) of the Act. Under Section 17(2), the
Director is empowered
to
direct the
management
to
appoint
the
selected
candidate and to pay him salary from the
date specified in the order. The salary is
recoverable as arrears of land revenue from
the property belonging to or vested in the
institution under sub-section (3) of Section

## Text

1 All. Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
189
fall within the category of 'rarest of rare
cases' attracting death penalty due to
presence of two factors as cited above.
81.

First,
the
present
case,
undisputedly is one of the circumstantial
evidence and second, all the appellants
have
no
prior
criminal
antecedent.
Therefore, it appears expedient in the
interest of justice that the extreme
punishment of death penalty awarded to
the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C.
be
substituted
with
sentence
of
imprisonment for life.
82. Accordingly the appeal is partly
allowed. The impugned judgment and
order dated 1.2.2007 is modified to the
extent that the death penalty awarded to
the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C.
is converted to imprisonment for the
whole of the remaining natural life of the
appellants,
subject
however
to
the
condition that the prisoner would be
eligible
to
any
commutation
and
remissions that may be granted by the
Hon'ble
President
and
the
Hon'ble
Governor under Articles 72 and 161 of
the Constitution of India or of the State
Government under Section 433-A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for good and
sufficient reasons.
83. Subject to the aforesaid
observations the appeal is partly allowed.
The reference No. 6 of 2007 for
confirming the death sentence is rejected.
-------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Special Appeal No. 966 of 2015
Devendra Singh
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Yogesh Agarwal
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Uttar
Pradesh
Secondary
Education
Services Selection Board Act 1982-Section
17
(2)(3)-Petitioner/Appellant
being
selected candidate as principle not allowed
to join in the year 1984-management taken
every conceivable effort to resist the joining
right from filing writ petition and dismissing
as withdrawn-against Civil suit seeking
permanent
injunction
getting
decree
against statutory-protection-total in action
on part of Director under Section 17-failure
to comply such direction being criminal
offence punishable under Section 22 of the
Act-held-appellant not to blamed for failure
on part of statutory authorities-entitled for
salary from the date of initial selectionwithout touching the direction of Single
Judge-director to hold enquiry and take
decision within3 months.
Held: Para-7
There has been a clear failure on the part of
the authorities to enforce their statutory
powers including the power which has been
conferred upon the Director under Section
17(3) of the Act. Under Section 17(2), the
Director is empowered
to
direct the
management
to
appoint
the
selected
candidate and to pay him salary from the
date specified in the order. The salary is
recoverable as arrears of land revenue from
the property belonging to or vested in the
institution under sub-section (3) of Section
17. These statutory powers have been
conferred for a salutary public purpose.
Failure to comply with a direction under
Section 17 is a criminal offence under
Section 22 of the Act. The Director was
obligated, upon being informed by the
appellant, to have taken recourse to the
190
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act by
issuing a direction to the Management of
the College to pay arrears of salary and
then proceeding to recover them as arrears
of land revenue through the Collector. The
appellant cannot be blamed for the failure
of the statutory authorities to comply with
their
provisions.
The
conduct
of
the
Management in obtaining an injunction in a
proceeding to which the appellant was not
even impleaded, speaks volumes of the
manner in which the rights of a duly
selected candidate have been defeated for
no fault of his.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. This special appeal arises from a
judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 4 December 2015.
2. The appellant filed a writ
petition1 in 2013 in order to challenge an
order passed by the District Inspector of
Schools, Mainpuri on 30 May 2012
declining to grant him arrears of salary for
the period during which he had not
worked as Principal of Dayanand Inter
College, Ghiror, District Mainpuri2 and
seeking a mandamus for the payment of
arrears of salary from 1985 till the date of
his superannuation on 30 June 2011 and
consequential retiral benefits. The learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petition in
part by directing that the appellant would
be entitled to salary with effect from 30
June 2006 which was the date on which
the appellant joined as Principal of the
College
pursuant
to
a
letter
of
appointment issued by the Committee of
Management3
on
19
July
2006.
Consequential benefits and retiral dues
were directed to be determined on that
basis. The appellant is aggrieved since his
wider claim for the payment of salary
from 1985 and for the computation of
retiral benefits on that basis has not found
acceptance of the learned Single Judge.
3. The appellant was selected by the
Uttar
Pradesh
Secondary
Education
Service
Selection
Commission
(now
replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education Services Selection Board4).
The
name
of
the
appellant
was
recommended by the Board on 20
December 1984 in pursuance of which the
District Inspector of Schools issued a
communication on 9 January 1985 to the
Manager of the College for the issuance
of a letter of appointment to the appellant.
A writ petition5 was filed in 1984 by the
Manager of the College challenging the
advertisement in pursuance of which the
appellant had applied for the post of
Principal, in which an interim order was
passed on 9 October 1984 by which it was
directed that the selection may proceed
but the letter of appointment will not be
issued until further orders. The interim
order held the field until the petition was
dismissed as withdrawn on 16 December
1989. Consequent upon the dismissal of
the writ petition, the appellant moved an
application on 21 December 1989 to the
District Inspector of Schools for the
issuance of a letter of appointment and the
District Inspector of Schools on 23
December 1989 directed the Management of
the College to appoint the appellant. The
Management having failed to comply, the
District Inspector of Schools again issued a
letter on 27 February 1990 to the
Management
for
appointment
of
the
appellant but the appellant was not
appointed.
The
appellant
moved
a
representation before the Regional Director
of Education on 13 March 1990 who once
again issued a direction to the Management
of the College on 15 May 1990. The
Management of the College instituted a suit6
1 All. Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
191
before the Civil Court for a permanent
injunction
restraining
the
State
from
appointing the Principal selected for the
College by the Board. The appellant applied
for impleadment which was rejected and
eventually the suit was decreed by the grant
of a permanent injunction on 10 April 1991.
4. Nearly sixteen years thereafter on
19 June 2006, the Management issued a
letter of appointment to the appellant who
claims to have joined on the post of
Principal on 30 June 2006. The District
Inspector of Schools declined to attest the
signatures of the appellant on the ground
that the appointment of the appellant was
contrary to the decree of the Civil Court.
The appellant filed a writ petition7 which
was dismissed by a learned Single Judge
on 8 July 2008. The appellant then filed a
special appeal8. A Division Bench of this
Court by an order dated 18 January 2012
allowed both the special appeal and Writ
Petition No 25950 of 2006 by setting
aside the judgment of the learned Single
Judge dated 8 July 2008. The appellant
then filed Writ-A No 21939 of 2013
seeking the payment of salary with effect
from 1985 and the computation of his
retiral dues on that basis in which the
judgment dated 4 December 2015 has
been passed which has given rise to the
present special appeal.
5.
Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board Act, 19829 requires the management
to notify vacancies to the Board in the
prescribed manner. Under Section 11, the
Board, upon the notification of a vacancy,
has to prepare a panel. The panel is required
to be intimated to the management of the
institution upon which under sub-section (4)
of Section 11 the management shall, within a
period of one month from the receipt of
intimation, issue a letter of appointment to
the selected candidate. Where a selected
candidate
is
not
appointed
by
the
management within the period provided,
Section 17 envisages an enquiry by the
Director, upon which under sub-section (2) a
direction is to issue to the management to
appoint the selected candidate and to pay
salary. The amount of salary, if any, due to
the teacher is upon a certificate issued by the
Director recoverable by the Collector as
arrears of land revenue.
6.
In the present case, the record
before the Court would indicate that the
Management
made
almost
every
conceivable effort to defeat the claim of the
selected candidate. Initially in 1984, a writ
petition was filed by the Manager of the
College in which an interim order was
passed which operated until the petition was
dismissed as withdrawn on 16 December
1989. Thereafter, from the narration of
facts, it has emerged that the appellant
continued to pursue his rights. The District
Inspector of Schools on 23 December 1989,
the Director on 27 February 1990 and the
Regional Director on 15 March 1990
directed the Management to pay salary but
the Management did not comply. The
Management filed a suit seeking a
permanent injunction which was decreed on
10 April 1991. The appellant was not
impleaded as a party to the suit. The
Division Bench of this Court in its judgment
dated 18 January 2012 noted that the suit
did not seek to challenge the appointment of
the appellant but was filed for restraining
the selected person from joining as
Principal. The Division Bench held that the
suit can have no consequence on the rights
of the appellant. As a matter of fact, the
Management of the College eventually
issued a letter of appointment on 19 June
2006.
192
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7.
There has been a clear failure on
the part of the authorities to enforce their
statutory powers including the power which
has been conferred upon the Director under
Section 17(3) of the Act. Under Section
17(2), the Director is empowered to direct
the management to appoint the selected
candidate and to pay him salary from the
date specified in the order. The salary is
recoverable as arrears of land revenue from
the property belonging to or vested in the
institution under sub-section (3) of Section
17. These statutory powers have been
conferred for a salutary public purpose.
Failure to comply with a direction under
Section 17 is a criminal offence under
Section 22 of the Act. The Director was
obligated, upon being informed by the
appellant, to have taken recourse to the
provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act by
issuing a direction to the Management of
the College to pay arrears of salary and then
proceeding to recover them as arrears of
land revenue through the Collector. The
appellant cannot be blamed for the failure of
the statutory authorities to comply with their
provisions. The conduct of the Management
in obtaining an injunction in a proceeding to
which
the
appellant
was
not
even
impleaded, speaks volumes of the manner
in which the rights of a duly selected
candidate have been defeated for no fault of
his.
8. In these circumstances, we are of
the view that the judgment of the learned
Single Judge granting to the appellant
relief only of the arrears of salary from 30
June 2006 would not sub-serve the ends
of justice. We clarify that this part of the
direction is not set aside as such.
However, on the wider claim of the
appellant, we direct that the Director of
Education shall, within a period of three
months from the receipt of a certified
copy of this order, carry out an enquiry
under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section
17 and issue appropriate directions for the
disbursal of salary to the appellant. The
Director shall scrutinize all facts after due
notice both to the appellant and to the
Management. The retiral dues of the
appellant shall thereupon be computed on
the basis of the directions so issued.
9. The special appeal is allowed in
these terms. There shall be no order as to
costs.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.02.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Service Bench No. 1185 of 2014
Smt. Mamta Srivastava
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. Lalta Prasad Mishra, Prafulla Tiwari
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rajnish Kumar
Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation
for physically handicapped, dependents of
freedom fighters & Ex-Serviceman)(Amendment)
Act 2009-Section 2(b)-U.P. Act no. 4 of 1993by amending original Act for first time on
20.08.99-married
grand
daughter
also
include-petitioner
being
married
grand
daughter of freedom fighter-participated in
competitive examination in U.P. Subordinate
Services-in
pursuance
of
advertisement
15.12.94-seeking benefits of amended Actpetition challenging enactment 1993 being
discriminatory between daughter and grand
daughter-whether such amended provisionapplicable prospectively or retrospectively ?-
held-being purely new legislation without