# Dinesh Kumar Yadav & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 227
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-05
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 24261 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-kumar-yadav-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46917
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Post of Assistant teacher
- Selection and appointment - Approval
granted
by
competent
authority
-
Approval
order
reviewed/recalled
-
Payment of salary stopped - No allegation
of fraud or misrepresentation - Validity -
No statute provide power of review -
Held, if the statutes does not provide the
provision permitting to review/recall the
order, the same cannot be done by the
authority - Impugned order should have
not been passed by the same authority
making review of its earlier order -
Impugned order quashed by High Court
holding
it
illegal,
unwarranted
and
without jurisdiction as well suffers from
voice of arbitrariness and perversity. (Para
34 and 35)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

## Text

3 All. Dinesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
227
2011 (2) ADJ 511, it has been held that
adopted son will be treated as son for the
purpose of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents
of Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974. Rule 2 (c) itself provides that
the
adopted
son
is
entitled
for
compassionate appointment. Hence, there
is no force in the argument of learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State
that the adopted son is not entitled for
compassionate appointment.

24. The impugned order dated 11.12.2019
has been passed by the Director General, Jail
Administration
and
Reforms
Services
Directorate, Lucknow who did not have
authority to reject the application of the
petitioner on the ground of delay as Section 5 of
1974
Rules
only
empowers
the
State
Government to do so. Therefore, the concerned
authority only had to refer the matter to the
State Government for consideration of the
application of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment and this having not been done,
renders the impugned order itself vitiated.

25. In view of above, the writ petition is
allowed with a direction to the respondents to
consider the case of petitioner keeping in view
the
observations
made
hereinabove
for
compassionate appointment within two months
from the date on which the certified copy of this
order is made available by petitioner along with
his representation and decide the same, if there
is no other legal impediment.
----------
(2021)03ILR A227
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 24261 of 2020
Dinesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Amarendra Nath Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Post of Assistant teacher
- Selection and appointment - Approval
granted
by
competent
authority
-
Approval
order
reviewed/recalled
-
Payment of salary stopped - No allegation
of fraud or misrepresentation - Validity -
No statute provide power of review -
Held, if the statutes does not provide the
provision permitting to review/recall the
order, the same cannot be done by the
authority - Impugned order should have
not been passed by the same authority
making review of its earlier order -
Impugned order quashed by High Court
holding
it
illegal,
unwarranted
and
without jurisdiction as well suffers from
voice of arbitrariness and perversity. (Para
34 and 35)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Naresh Kumar & ors. Vs Government (NCT of
Delhi); (2019) 9 SCC 416

2. Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta Vs Management of
Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) &
ors.; AIR 1987 SC 2186)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioners have assailed the order dated
30.06.2020 passed by the District Inspector
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Schools, Lucknow, respondent No.3, (in
short D.I.O.S.), by means of which the
earlier order of approval of selection/
appointment of the petitioners dated
18.04.2013 has been cancelled.

3. The brief facts of the issue are that
two substantiative vacancies occurred in
the attached primary section of Sohan Lal
Intermediate College, Rajendra Nagar,
Lucknow (in short College/ Institution) and
therefore, the Manger of the Committee of
Management of the College by his letter
dated 27.02.2013 sought permission of the
D.I.O.S. for filling up the aforesaid two
vacancies. The D.I.O.S. vide his order
dated 03.03.2013 granted permission for
making selection and appointment on the
post of Assistant Teacher in attached
primary section of the College for making
one appointment from amongst the general
category candidates and one appointment
from amongst the scheduled caste category
candidates.

4. Pursuant to the permission granted
by the D.I.O.S., an advertisement was
published on 04.03.2013 in two leading
Newspapers, namely, Indian Express and
Swatantra Bharat. The bare perusal of the
advertisement dated 04.03.2013, it is
crystal clear that in the advertisement it has
been
categorically
stated
that
the
educational qualification and age will be
required as prescribed in U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 (here-in-after referred
to as the 'Act, 1921') along with the
certificate of T.E.T. Thus, it is very much
clear that the educational qualifications
prescribed in the advertisement is as per the
statutory requirement under the law.

5. Both the petitioners are graduates
in their respective subjects and had passed
B.Ed. Examinations and also possess T.E.T.
qualifications for appointment on the post
of Assistant Teacher in attached primary
section of the College. The petitioners
being fully eligible for appointment on the
post of Assistant Teacher submitted their
application through registered post.

6. All the candidates were sent call
letters through registered post to appear in
the interview scheduled on 14th April,
2013.
The
petitioners
received
the
interview call letters and appeared in the
interview along with other candidates on
the date fixed before the duly constituted
Selection Committee and on the basis of
the quality point marks, the Selection
Committee prepared two separate select
lists, one for the candidates of general
category and other for the candidates of
scheduled caste category for the two
separate posts.

7. From the aforementioned select list
prepared by the Selection Committee, it
clearly born out that against the general
category vacancy name of the petitioner
No.1 was recommended as a general
category candidate and against the vacancy
of scheduled caste category name of
petitioner No.2 was recommended as a
Scheduled Caste Category candidate.

8. After completion of the selection
process, the Manager of the Committee of
Management of the College forwarded all
the papers pertaining to selection to the
D.I.O.S. vide his letter dated 15.04.2013
whereby he requested him for granting
approval of the selection.

9. The District Inspector of Schools
examined all the papers pertaining to the
selection and after being satisfied with due
selection procedure and the candidates
possess the requisite qualifications granted
3 All. Dinesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
229
approval to the selection so made vide his
order dated 18.04.2013 whereby the
appointment of the petitioners on the post
of Assistant Teacher in the attached primary
section of the College was approved. The
order dated 18.04.2013 has been enclosed
as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition.

10. Pursuant to the approval granted by
the D.I.O.S., petitioners were issued letters of
appointment. The petitioner No.1 was issued
letter of appointment on 18.04.2013 and
consequently he joined on 20.04.2013 and the
petitioner
No.2
was
issued
letter
of
appointment on 18.04.2013 and consequently
he joined on 22.04.2013 on the post of
Assistant Teacher in the attached primary
section of the College.

11. Both the petitioners pursuant to their
appointment submitted their joining in the
College which was duly accepted and the
petitioners started discharging their duties
attached to their post. Both the petitioners
continued to discharge their duties in the
College and both were paid their due salary
from the State Exchequer from the month of
April, 2013 till the month of October, 2013.

12. As per learned counsel for the
petitioners, all of sudden without there being
any order in writing payment of salary of the
petitioners was stopped. The petitioners had
represented to the D.I.O.S. and requested that
their appointment has already been approved
by the Competent Authority i.e. D.I.O.S.
concerned vide order dated 18.04.2013 and
they were being paid their regular salary,
therefore, there is no occasion for stopping
their salary and ultimately they prayed for
payment of their regular salary, but in vain.

13. When the salary of the petitioners
was not paid, the petitioner No.1 filed writ
petition bearing Writ Petition No.299 (S/S)
of 2015 with the prayer for direction to
opposite parties for making payment of
regular salary and this Court vide order
dated 19.02.2015 directed the D.I.O.S. to
decide the representation of the petitioner
with a speaking and reasoned order.

14. The respondent No.3 while
deciding the representation of the petitioner
No.1 for payment of salary declared the
appointment of both the petitioners as
illegal vide order dated 03.07.2015 without
affording any opportunity of hearing.

15. As per learned counsel for the
petitioners, this Court vide order dated
19.02.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.299
(S/S) of 2015 only directed the respondent
No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner
No.1 for payment of salary not to review
the appointment of the petitioners which
was duly approved by the Competent
Authority on 18.04.2013. As a matter of
fact, the Administrative Authority cannot
review its own order.

16.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted that on one hand
the respondent No.3 has declared the
appointment of the petitioners illegal but
the
order
dated
18.04.2013
granting
approval of the appointment of the
petitioners was neither cancelled nor
revoked and the same remained intact.

17. The reason to declare the
appointment of the petitioners is illegal
vide order dated 03.07.2015 is that the
educational qualifications for appointment
on the post in question have not been
properly disclosed in the advertisement in
question.

18.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ground is apparently unwarranted inasmuch
as the advertisement in question clearly
indicates that the educational qualifications
for the post of Assistant Teacher would be
such as prescribed under the Act, 1921 and
the candidate must possess the T.E.T.
qualification. Therefore, in that sense the
order dated 03.07.2015 is perverse.

19. Both the petitioners have assailed
the order dated 03.07.2015 by filing
separate writ petition bearing Writ Petition
No.4184 (S/S) of 2015 (Petitioner No.1)
and Writ Petition No.784 (S/S) of 2016
(Petitioner No.2). During pendency of
those writ petitions, the petitioners had
represented to the respondent No.3 vide
representation dated 06.02.2016 making
request that since the petitioners were
continuously working on the post of
Assistant Teacher, therefore, they be paid
their due salary.

20. As per learned counsel for the
petitioners, the Regional Joint Director,
Secondary Education, Lucknow vide its
letter
No.(2)/11264/2014-15
dated
26.12.2014 had constituted a three member
enquiry Committee to look into the matter.
The said three members enquiry Committee
had found the selection and appointment of
the petitioners valid and legal. The
respondent No.3 had forwarded the enquiry
report to the respondent No.2 vide its letter
No.Ma./11560-61/2015-16
dated
08.03.2016 along with enquiry report. The
letter dated 08.03.2016 along with enquiry
report has been enclosed by the petitioners
as Annexure No.13 to the writ petition.

21.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has further submitted that the
Finance
Controller,
Directorate
of
Education, Allahabad in his audit report
had opined that there was no justification in
the non-payment of salary of the petitioners
and expected to make payment of salary of
the petitioners. Such audit report has been
enclosed as Annexure No.14 to the writ
petition.

22. The respondent No.3, on the basis
of enquiry report, the audit report and the
fact that the order giving approval of
selection/ appointment of the petitioners
still remained intact, being the Competent
Authority,
had
passed
order
dated
28.05.2016 for payment of salary to the
petitioners and also the arrears were
released.
The
copy
of
order
dated
28.05.2016 has been enclosed as Annexure
No.15 to the writ petition.

23. As per learned counsel for the
petitioners, since the respondent No.3 had
passed the order dated 28.05.2016, the
petitioners left with no grievance, hence,
both the petitioners withdrew their writ
petitions.

24. Thereafter, pursuant to the order
dated 28.05.2015 passed by the respondent
No.3, the petitioners were paid regular
salary till December, 2019 and no objection
of any kind whatsoever was raised from
any quarter. However, as per learned
counsel for the petitioners, all of sudden the
salary of the petitioners was again stopped
without any rhyme or reason, in a most
illegal and arbitrary manner and without
there being any order in writing having
been communicated to the petitioners.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners again
represented the respondent No.3 vide
separate representation dated 18.03.2020
for payment of salary for the month of
January and February, 2020. On the said
representation, the respondent No.3 had
passed
the
impugned
order
dated
30.06.2020,
which
is
contained
as
3 All. Dinesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
231
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, by
means of which, the order of grant of
approval of selection/ appointment of the
petitioners dated 18.04.2013 and the order
of release of salary dated 28.05.2016, were
recalled holding that no salary is liable to
be paid to the petitioners.

25. As per learned counsel for the
petitioners, the impugned order dated
30.06.2020 has been passed on the ground
that the advertisement was erroneous and
incomplete and the procedure of selection
was not transparent. All the grounds taken
in the impugned order dated 30.06.2020 are
perverse and non-tenable and are passed in
a most mechanical and arbitrary manner.

26.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has reiterated that first of all
there was no error in the advertisement as
the same specifically states that the
educational qualification would be as per
the Act, 1921. Thus, whatever prescriptions
were given under the Act, 1921 regarding
the educational qualification, were the
qualifications for the post. There is no
prescription of any specific mode or
proforma for prescribing the educational
qualification in the advertisement under the
law.

27.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted that as far as the
ground taken in the impugned order dated
30.06.2020
regarding
alleged
forged
experience certificate is concerned, the
same is also perverse and un-tenable in the
eyes of law.

28. Sri Tripathi has contended that the
respondent No.3 vide its letter dated
26.05.2020 had sought information from
the Manager of the Eram Convent Inter
College, Rajajipuram Lucknow regarding
experience certificate of the petitioner No.1
and in pursuance thereof the Manager of
the
said
Institution
had
given
the
clarification vide letters dated 08.06.2020
and 19.06.2020. In the reply, the Institution
had informed the respondent No.3 that the
petitioner No.1 was appointed in January,
2006 in its Indira Nagar Branch and had
started teaching and subsequently he was
transferred to its another branch at
Rajajipuram where he worked till May,
2011. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner
No.1 had experience of more than 5 years
and was duly given weightage of 10 marks
as per law. The copies of the aforesaid
correspondences have been enclosed as
Annexure Nos.18 & 19 with the writ
petition.

Further, the respondent No.3 vide
its letter No.417 dated 26.05.2020 had
sought information from the Manager of
the
National
Public
High
School,
Rajajipuram,
Lucknow
regarding
experience certificate of the petitioner No.2
and in pursuance thereof the Manager of
the
said
Institution
had
given
the
clarification vide letter dated 22.06.2020.
In the reply, the Institution had informed
the respondent No.3 that the petitioner
No.2 had worked as Assistant Teacher from
1st July, 2005 to 31st May, 2007 and again
from 1st July, 2009 to 31st January, 2013.
Thus, it is evident that the petitioner No.2
had experience of more than 5 years (in
two
trenches)
and
was
duly
given
weightage of 10 marks as per law. The bare
perusal of the impugned order goes to show
that the respondent No.3 in its impugned
order had not considered the fact that the
petitioner No.2 had worked in National
Public High School in two trenches.

29. Sri Tripathi has contended with
vehemence that the allegation in the
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned
order
dated
30.06.2020
regarding appointment of the petitioner
No.1 being OBC category candidates
against the vacancy of general category is
concerned, the said ground is a frivolous
one. As a matter of fact, every one
including the OBC category candidate is
eligible to apply against the unreserved
seats
(commonly
known
as
general
category seats) and, as such, there was no
illegality in the said appointment of the
petitioner No.1. Thus, it is evident that the
impugned order dated 30.06.2020 is
baseless, illegal and arbitrary in nature and
is passed without having any jurisdiction to
review its earlier approval order dated
18.04.2013, thus without jurisdiction.

30.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has submitted with vehemence
that the Quasi Judicial Authority or the
Administrative Authority has got no power
to review its earlier order if the statute does
not provide so, in view of the dictum of
Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Naresh Kumar
& others vs. Government (NCT of Delhi)
reported in (2019) 9 SCC 416. The
inference has been drawn towards para-13
of the aforesaid judgment, which is being
reproduced here-in-below:-

"13. It is settled law that the
power of Review can be exercised only
when the statute provides for the same. In
the absence of any such provision in the
statute concerned, such power of Review
cannot be exercised by the authority
concerned. This Court in the case of
Kalabharati
Advertising
vs.
Hemant
Vimalnath Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437,
has held as under: (SCC pp. 445-46, paras
12-14).

"......12.
It
is
settled
legal
proposition that unless the statute/rules so
permit, the review application is not
maintainable in case of judicial/quasijudicial orders. In the absence of any
provision in the Act granting an express
power of review, it is manifest that a review
could not be made and the order in review,
if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without
jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha
v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar [AIR
1965 SC 1457] and Harbhajan Singh v.
Karam Singh [AIR 1966 SC 641] .)

13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v.
Pradyuman Singhji Arjun Singhji [(1971) 3
SCC 844, Major Chandra Bhan Singh v.
Latafat Ullah Khan [(1979) 1 SCC 321],
Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) v. Hindu Kanya
Mahavidyalaya [(1987) 4 SCC 525 : 1987
SCC (L&S) 491:, State of Orissa v. Commr.
of Land Records and Settlement [(1998) 7
SCC 162] and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar
Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 705 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Cri) 537] this Court held that the power to
review is not an inherent power. It must be
conferred
by
law
either
expressly/specifically
or
by
necessary
implication and in the absence of any
provision in the Act/Rules, review of an
earlier order is impermissible as review is
a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review
can be derived only from the statute and
thus, any order of review in the absence of
any statutory provision for the same is a
nullity, being without jurisdiction.

14. Therefore, in view of the
above, the law on the point can be
summarized to the effect that in the absence
of any statutory provision providing for
review, entertaining an application for
review or under the garb of clarification
/modification/
correction
is
not
permissible."

31. Besides, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in re: Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta vs.
Management
of
Hindu
Kanya
Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) & others
3 All. Dinesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
233
reported in [AIR 1987 SC 2186) has also
held that the Administrative Authority or a
Quasi Judicial Authority cannot review its
own order unless power of review is
expressly conferred on it by the statute
under which it derives its jurisdiction.

32. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel has submitted that since the
specific qualification was not mentioned in
the advertisement in question, therefore the
impugned order dated 30.06.2020 has been
rightly passed. He has also submitted that
on account of several complaints being
received against the selection/ appointment
in question, the enquiry was conducted. So
far as enquiry conducted by the three
members
Committee
whereby
the
appointment of the petitioners was found
valid and legal is concerned, the learned
Standing Counsel has submitted that the
said enquiry was not conducted properly.

33. On being confronted on the point
as to whether the Administrative Authority
can review/ recall its own order, learned
Standing Counsel could not demonstrate
any provisions of law permitting the same
authority to review/ recall its own order. On
being further confronted as to whether
there may be other qualification except
those qualifications as indicated in the Act,
1921, the learned Standing Counsel has
submitted that it is true that there are no
other
qualifications
except
such
qualification which has been indicated
under the Act, 1921 but instead of
indicating the qualification as per the Act,
1921, specific qualifications should have
been indicated in the advertisement. On
being further confronted as to whether the
petitioners
are
not
having
requisite
qualifications, learned Standing Counsel
has submitted that the petitioners are
having
requisite
qualifications
as
prescribed under the law. Further, as to
whether the candidate belonging to OBC
category candidate may not compete with
the candidate of General Category or he
may not be selected on the vacancy
earmarked for General Category candidate,
learned Standing Counsel has submitted
that in view of the settled proposition of
law of Hon'ble Apex Court, the candidate
of the reserved category may compete for
the vacancy earmarked for the General
Category.

34. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, I am of the considered
opinion that in view of the dictums' of
Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Naresh Kumar
(supra) and Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta
(supra), the power of review can be
exercise only when the statutes provides for
the same and since the statutes does not
provide the provision permitting to review/
recall the order, the same cannot be done by
the authority concerned.

35. Further, the advertisement in
question
clearly
indicates
that
the
educational qualification and age will be
required
as
prescribed
under
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 along
with the certificate of T.E.T. and for
making selection on the post of Assistant
Teacher in the Institution governed under
the provisions of the Act, 1921, the
qualification
prescribed
in
the
advertisement is the correct qualification.
There is no allegation of any fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of the
petitioners in the impugned order and
undoubtedly the petitioners are having
requisite qualifications prescribed under the
law. The District Inspector of Schools,
Lucknow had granted approval to the
selection of the petitioners vide his order
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 18.04.2013. Thereafter, on the basis
of enquiry report and audit report and
considering the factum of approval earlier
given
for
the
appointment
of
the
petitioners, the D.I.O.S. passed an order
dated 28.05.2016 for payment of salary to
the petitioners which was earlier stopped
in the month of November, 2013 and
even the arrears of salary were also
released. On account of these facts, the
petitioners have got their writ petitions
withdrawn, which were filed assailing the
order dated 03.07.2015 passed by the
D.I.O.S. holding the appointment of the
petitioners erroneous as the advertisement
in question was not issued properly.
Therefore, when the conscious decision
has been taken by the D.I.O.S. on
28.05.2016, the impugned order dated
30.06.2020 should have not been passed
by the same authority making review of
its earlier order. As a matter of fact, the
D.I.O.S. vide impugned order dated
30.06.2020 has not only reviewed the
order of approval dated 18.04.2013 but
also reviewed the order dated 28.05.2016,
therefore, the said order dated 30.06.2020
is without jurisdiction and uncalled for
order. The Administrative Authorities
must mind their statutory limits and if
such limit is crossed without having any
colour of authority, the said inaction
would be absolutely unacceptable.

36. In view of the facts and
circumstances as well as the dictums' of
Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Naresh Kumar
(supra) and Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta
(supra), the order dated 30.06.2020
passed by the respondent No.3, which is
contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ
petition, is illegal, unwarranted and
without jurisdiction, besides, suffers from
voice of arbitrariness and perversity,
hence, such order is hereby quashed.

37. A writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued commanding the
opposite parties to allow the petitioners to
work on their respective posts and they
be paid their regular salary forthwith. The
opposite parties are also directed to pay
the arrears of salary, which has been
withheld, within a period of three months
and the petitioners shall be treated
continued in service.

38. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.

39. No order as to cost.
----------
(2021)03ILR A234
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 428 of 2020

Satypal Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Kamlesh Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Manoj Kumar Misra

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 - calling for
records to exercise powers of revision,
Section 401- High court's powers of
revision, Section 319 - Power to proceed
against other persons appearing to be
guilty of offence , Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 452, 302, 504, 506 - Unless
there is cogent and credible evidence
available against a person which may lead
to
conviction
of
the
person
after