# Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tewari v. State of U.P. and others With

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1002
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-07-28
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22497 of 2004
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, Vikram Nath
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-rajesh-kumar-tewari-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-with-40706
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri C.B. Yadav
Sri H.N. Singh
Sri S.N. Singh
S.C.

U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
(Reservation of Physically Handicapped)
3 All] Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tewari V. State of U.P. and othes
1003
Dependents of Freedom of Fighters of
Ex-Service
men)
Act-1973-Rule-3
Reservation-out of 82 posts of Hindis
lecturer-2% Quota for dependents of
fighters of freedom comes-1.62% e.g. 2
post are declared reserved for P.H.
Quota.

Held: Para 13

In the present case, it is admitted fact
that 82 vacancies were advertised and
the quota fixed for the dependents of
freedom fighters is 2%. Thus, 2% of 82
being more than 1.5 would result into 2
posts in that quota. The law with regard
to rounding off is very clear and well
settled. Where the value is one-half or
more, it has to be rounded off to the next
whole number and where it is less than
one-half, it has to be ignored. In the
present case, 2% of 81 comes to 1.62. It
being more than one-half, the value to
be taken is 2. This view is supported by
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of U.P. and another Vs.
Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others reported
in AIR 2005 SC 658.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC-477
AIR 2005 SC-658

## Text

1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
days on which judicial work was to be
performed by revenue authorities attended
with further direction to keep adherence
to the days and time fixed by earlier
circulars and also to quota prescribed for
disposal for them in a month.

4. It would thus appear that the
Board
of
Revenue
has
issued
comprehensive directions from time to
time in observance of the orders of this
Court. However, considering that the
directions about holding courts for 4 days
and adhering to the court hours between
10 a.m. to 5 p.m. are not being strictly
followed as would be manifested from the
D.Os. and circulars issued by the Board of
Revenue, I feel called to call upon the
Board of Revenue to collect details of the
disposal month-wise in the shape of
monthly statements for the period from
Sept 2005 upto June 2006 decided by
subordinate revenue courts on merits, to
be precise, from Divisional commissioner
for the works performed by Addl.
Commissioner (Administration) and Addl.
Commissioner
(Revenue)
and
from
District
Magistrate
for
the
works[
performed by the District Magistrates
themselves
including
Addl.
District
Magistrate, S.D.Os, Tahsildar and Naib
Tahsildar. The details so received may be
short-listed by Board of Revenue for
onward transmission and perusal of the
Court.

5.

I
have
searched
various
circulars/D.Os
containing
various
directions issued in compliance of the
orders of the Court for direction if any, to
the Presiding officers to wear proper dress
while sitting in Court performing judicial
functions. Since these presiding officers
are performing judicial functions, it is
incumbent upon them to wear proper
dress besides observing in compliance the
various other norms prescribed there-for.
A direction to this effect may be issued to
all the Presiding officers manning the
revenue courts in the State.

6. Since further details have been
sought from the Board of Revenue as
enumerated above, with a view to
monitoring compliance with the directions
of the Court, list this matter on Sept
11,2006.

7. Office is directed to supply
certified copy of this order to Sri Sanjeev
Goswami, learned Standing counsel High
Court Allahabad within a week from
today.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM NATH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22497 of 2004

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tewari
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
With
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23534 of 2004

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishnu Behari Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri C.B. Yadav
Sri H.N. Singh
Sri S.N. Singh
S.C.

U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
(Reservation of Physically Handicapped)
3 All] Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tewari V. State of U.P. and othes
1003
Dependents of Freedom of Fighters of
Ex-Service
men)
Act-1973-Rule-3
Reservation-out of 82 posts of Hindis
lecturer-2% Quota for dependents of
fighters of freedom comes-1.62% e.g. 2
post are declared reserved for P.H.
Quota.

Held: Para 13

In the present case, it is admitted fact
that 82 vacancies were advertised and
the quota fixed for the dependents of
freedom fighters is 2%. Thus, 2% of 82
being more than 1.5 would result into 2
posts in that quota. The law with regard
to rounding off is very clear and well
settled. Where the value is one-half or
more, it has to be rounded off to the next
whole number and where it is less than
one-half, it has to be ignored. In the
present case, 2% of 81 comes to 1.62. It
being more than one-half, the value to
be taken is 2. This view is supported by
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of U.P. and another Vs.
Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others reported
in AIR 2005 SC 658.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC-477
AIR 2005 SC-658

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.)

1. Both these writ petitions have
been filed with a prayer to command the
respondents to permit the petitioners to
appear in the interview for the post of
Lecturer in Hindi under the category of
dependents of freedom fighters against
the Advertisement No.32 issued by the
U.P.
Higher
Education
Service
Commission. Both these petitions relate to
Advertisement No. 32 only. Pleadings in
both these petitions are also similar. Both
these petitions, being similar in nature,
and the relief claimed also being similar,
they are being heard together. The
pleadings of Writ Petition No. 22497 of
2004 are being referred to in this
judgment.

2. Upon a request being sent by the
Director, Higher Education, U.P., the
Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service
Commission issued Advertisement Nos.
30, 31 and 32 jointly inviting applications
for the post of Lecturer in different degree
colleges and post graduate colleges for
appointment of Lecturers in different
institutions all over the State. A copy of
the advertisement has been filed as
Annexure
1.
According
to
the
advertisement, total of 82 vacancies for
the post of Lecturer in Hindi were
advertised and the break up given was 41
posts for General category, 22 posts
reserved for Other Backward Caste
category, 17 posts reserved for the
Scheduled Caste category and 2 posts
reserved
for
the
Scheduled
Tribes
category.
The
advertisement
further
mentioned that the reservation applicable
for physically handicapped, dependents of
freedom fighters and ex-service men was
also applicable in the selection. According
to both the petitioners, they had applied
under the category of dependents of
freedom fighters, but the respondents had
illegally not applied the reservation in
accordance with law for the dependents of
freedom fighters and therefore, they were
being illegally deprived from being
considered under the said category.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondents in which the fact that
the petitioner have applied and are
eligible for consideration under the
dependents of freedom fighters category,
is not disputed. The controversy which
has arisen upon the filing of the counter
affidavit is that the respondents have not
correctly applied the provisions of U.P.
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Act No. 4 of 1993. What has been stated
in the counter affidavit filed by Shri
Nakachhed Ram posted as Assistant
Director in the Directorate of Higher
Education, is that although 2% reservation
quota is admissible for the dependents of
freedom fighters, but out of 41 vacancies
for General Category, one post was
reserved for the dependents of freedom
fighters. It has further been stated in the
counter
affidavit
that
horizontal
reservation for physically handicapped,
dependents of freedom fighter and Exservice men quota are allowed within the
prescribed quota of General, OBC, SC
and ST category. Paragraph 5 of the
counter
affidavit
containing
these
averments is quoted hereunder:

"That the contents of paragraph no. 6
of the writ petition are not admitted for
the reason already given in para 1 (d) of
this counter affidavit. However, it is
pertinent
is
submit
that
vertical
reservation can not exceed 50% of total
vacancies. Hence, horizontal reservations
for physically Handicapped, Dependent of
the Freedom Fighter and Ex-Serviceman
quota are allowed within the prescribed
quota of General, OBC, SC and ST
category. It is further submitted that only
2% reservation quota is admissible for the
dependents of freedom fighter (Annexure
1 to this counter affidavit). In the present
case, out of 41 vacancies for General
category one post was reserved for the
dependent of Freedom Fighters. Hence,
the averments to the contrary made in
para under reply are incorrect and
therefore denied."

4. These averments, it is alleged, age
based upon the interpretation of a
Government Order dated 22nd October,
2001 filed as Annexure CA1 to the
counter affidavit of Dr. Nakachhed Ram.
Clause 6 of the said Government Order is
relevant for the present controversy. The
same is quoted hereunder:

"(6) mRrj izns'k yksd lsok 1⁄4'kkjhfjd :i ls
fodykax] LorU=rk laxzke lsukuh ds vkfJr vkSj HkwriwoZ
lSfudksa ds fy, vkj{k.k1⁄2 vf/kfu;e] 1993 esa mRrj izns'k
vf/kfu;e la[;k 6 lu~ 1997] mRrj izns'k v/;kns'k la[;k
11 lu~ 1999 rFkk mRrj izns'k vf/kfu;e la[;k 29 lu~
1999 }kjk fd;s x;s la'kks/kuksa ds vuqlkj yksd lsokvksa
vkSj inksa esa] lh/kh HkrhZ ds izdze ij] fuEufyf[kr oxZ ds
O;fDr;ksa dks muds lEeq[k vafdr izfr'kr esa vkj{k.k iznku
fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS%&

1⁄411⁄2 Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh ds
vkfJr ds fy;s
fjfDr;ksa dk 2 izfr'kr
1⁄421⁄2 HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds fy;s
fjfDr;ksa dk 5 izfr'kr
1⁄4lewg d ,oa [k dh
fjfDr;ksa ds flok;1⁄2
1⁄431⁄2 1⁄4d1⁄2 n`f"Vghurk@de n`f"V
ls xzflr O;fDr;ksa ds fy;s

jkT; ljdkj }kjk
vf/klwfpr inksa esa
fjfDr;ksa dk 1 izfr'kr

1⁄4[k1⁄2 Jo.kg~kl ls xzflr
O;fDr;ksa ds fy;s
rnSo

1⁄4x1⁄2 pyu fdz;k lEcU/kh
fu%'kDrrk ;k izefLr"dh;
vax?kkr
ls
xzflr
O;fDr;ksa ds fy;s
rnSo

mi;qZDr vkj{k.k gkfjtkUVy gksxk vFkkZr ;fn mi;qZDr
oxksZa esa ls fdlh oxZ dk p;fur vH;FkhZ vuqlwfpr tkfr dk
gks rks mls vuqlwfpr tkfr ds dksVk esa] ;Fkkvko';d
lek;kstu djrs gq;s j[kk tk;sxkA ;fn og vH;FkhZ vuqlwfpr
tutkfr dk gks rks mls vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds dksVk esa]
;Fkkvko';d lek;kstu djrs gq;s j[kk tk;sxkA ;fn og
vH;FkhZ vU; fiNM+k oxZ dk gks rks mls vU; fiNM+k oxZ ds
dksVk esa] ;Fkkvko';d lek;kstu djds j[kk tk;sxkA ;fn og
[kqyh izfr;ksfxrk okyh dVsxjh vFkkZr lkekU; oxZ dk gks rks
mls ml oxZ esa ;Fkkvko';d lek;kstu djds j[kk tk;sxkA

;fn dksbZ fjfDr mi;qDr vH;FkhZ dh vuqmiyC/krk ds
dkj.k fcuk Hkjh jg tkrh gS rks mls vkxkeh HkrhZ ds fy;s
vxzuhr fd;k tk;sxkA"

5. It has further been alleged in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
3 All] Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tewari V. State of U.P. and othes
1005
State as well as the Commission that the
index of the petitioners was less than the
minimum index in the general category up
to which level the candidates in the
general
category
were
called
for
interview, as such the petitioners were not
called for interview. However, pursuant to
interim order passed by this Court, it is
stated in the supplementary counter
affidavit of the Commission that the
petitioners
have
been
interviewed,
however, their results have not been
declared as per the interim order of this
Court.

6. From the stand taken by the
respondents, basically three questions
arise in these petitions. Firstly while
applying the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1993
whether the vacancies are to be calculated
separately for each caste category or on
the entire number of posts advertised?
The second question is whether the
candidates, seeking reservation under the
U.P. Act No. 4 of 1993, have to compete
with the candidates of their respective
caste category? Lastly to what relief are
the petitioners entitled?

7. We have heard Shri Ram Gopal
Tripathi and Shri V.B. Tiwari for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents and Shri H.N. Singh
for the Commission in both the writ
petitions.

8. The Uttar Pradesh Public Services
(Reservation for Physically Handicapped,
Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Exservice Men) Act, 1993 (in short referred
to as U.P. Act No. 4 of 1993) was
promulgated and came into force with
effect
from
30th
December,
1993.
According to Section 3 of the U.P. Act
No. 4 of 1993, it was provided that there
shall be reserved 5% of vacancies at the
stage of direct recruitment in favour of the
physically handicapped, dependents of
freedom fighters and ex-service men. Sub
section 2 of Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 4
of 1993 provided that the respective quota
of the categories shall be such as the State
Government may from time to time
determine by a notified order. Further, sub
section 3 of Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 4
of 1993 provided the manner in which the
reservation was to be applied. For sake of
convenience, Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 4
of 1993 is quoted hereunder:

"3. Reservation of vacancies in
favour of physically handicapped etc.-
(1) In public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the State
there shall be reserved five percent of
vacancies
at
the
stage
of
direct
recruitment in favour of-

(i) Physically handicapped
(ii) dependents of freedom fighters, and
(iii) ex-servicemen

(2) The respective quota of the
categories specified in sub-section (1)
shall be such as the State Government
may from time to time determine by a
notified order.

(3) The persons selected against the
vacancies reserved under sub-section (1)
shall be placed in the appropriate
categories to which they belong. For
example, if a selected person belongs to
Scheduled Castes category he will be
placed in that quota by making necessary
adjustments; if he belongs to Scheduled
Tribes category, he will be placed in that
quota by making necessary adjustments;
if he belongs to Backward Classes
category, he will be placed in that quota
by
making
necessary
adjustments.
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Similarly
if
he
belongs
to
open
competition category, he will be placed in
that
category
by
making
necessary
adjustments.

(4) For the purpose of sub-section (1)
an year of recruitment shall be taken as
the unit and not the entire strength of the
cadre or service, as the case may be:

Provided that at no point of time the
reservation shall, in the entire strength of
cadre, or service, as the case may be,
exceed
the
quota
determined
for
respective categories.

(5) The vacancies reserved under
sub-section (1) shall not be carried over to
the next year of recruitment."

9. From a perusal of sub-Section (3)
of the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1993, it is clear
that
persons
selected
under
the
aforementioned three categories would be
placed in their respective categories of
General, OBC, SC and ST depending
upon their status in each of the categories
and accordingly, the vacancy in each of
the four categories would be reduced by
the number of the selected candidates
under the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1993. Even
the Government Order dated 22.10.2001
also in clear and specific terms lays down
the same view. To be more explicit,
supposing out of the total number of
vacancies advertised, there were two posts
to be filled up from the dependents of
freedom fighters category and if both the
candidates
selected
under
the
said
category belong to General Category, then
they would occupy two positions in the
total posts earmarked for the General
Category and the remaining post of the
General Category would be filled up
accordingly. However, in a situation
where the two candidates selected under
the dependents of freedom fighters
category belong to different castes, that is,
one General and one OBC, then one post
from each of the two categories would be
reduced by one and the remaining posts in
each of the two categories would be filled
up accordingly.

10. The scheme as envisaged under
Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1993
clearly provides
for the extent of
reservation, the categories for which
reservation is being made and the manner
in which it is to be applied. Sub section
(1) provides that there shall be a
maximum of five percent reservation on
vacancies for each of the three categories
mentioned
in
that
section.
Further
according
to
sub
section
(2),
the
respective quota for each category may be
such as the State Government may
determine. Sub section (3) deals with the
method in which the selected candidate in
each of the three categories are to be
placed in the respective caste categories.
From a close and careful reading of the
entire Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 4 of
1993, it is clear that vacancies for each of
the three categories covered by the said
Act are to be calculated on the total
number of vacancies advertised. The
language used in sub section (1) is very
clear in this regard which reads as
follows:-

"(1) In public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the State
there shall be reserved five percent of
vacancies
at
the
stage
of
direct
recruitment."

11. Further sub section (3) provides
that after selection, the candidates are to
be placed in their respective caste
category thereby consuming post of that
caste category leaving the balance to be
filled up from amongst the candidates
3 All] Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tewari V. State of U.P. and othes
1007
selected in that caste category. In case the
stand of the respondents is to be accepted,
the scheme of Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 4
of 1993 would fail. The Legislature, if it
intended, what the respondents claim that
for reservation to the three categories
under U.P. Act No. 4 of 1993, the
vacancies are to be calculated on the
number of posts in each of the caste
category, then the Legislature would have
framed Section 3 differently. That being
the position, it is difficult to uphold the
contention of the respondents.

12. The Apex Court in case of
Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India
reported in AIR 1993 SC 477 has
explained
the
concept
of
'vertical
reservations' and horizontal reservations'.
It would be but appropriate to quote para
95 of the Apex Court judgment in Indira
Sawhney's case (supra):-

"We are also of the opinion that this
rule of 50% applies only to reservations in
favour of backward classes made under
Article 16 (4). A little clarification is in
order at this juncture: all reservations are
not of the same nature. There are two
types of reservations, which may, for the
sake of convenience, we referred to as
'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal
reservations'. The reservations in favour
of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and other backward classes (under Article
16 (4) may be called vertical reservations
whereas
reservations
in
favour
of
physically handicapped (under Clause (1)
of Article 16) can be referred to as
horizontal
reservations.
Horizontal
reservations
cut
across
vertical
reservations-what is called inter-locking
reservations. To be more precise, suppose
3% of the vacancies are reserved in
favour of physically handicapped persons;
this would be a reservation relatable to
Clause (1) of Article 16. The persons
selected against this quota will be placed
in the appropriate category; if he belongs
to S.C. Category he will be placed in that
quota by making necessary adjustments;
similarly,
if
he
belongs
to
open
competition (O.C.) category, he will be
placed in that category by making
necessary
adjustments.
Even
after
providing
for
these
horizontal
reservations,
the
percentage
of
reservations in favour of backward class
of citizens remains-and should remain-the
same. This is how these reservations are
worked out in several States and there is
no reason not to continue that procedure.

It is however, made clear that the
rule of 50% shall be applicable only to
reservations proper; they shall not beindeed
cannot
be-applicable
to
exemptions, concessions or relaxations, if
any provided to 'Backward Class of
Citizens' under Article 16 (4).

13. In the present case, it is admitted
fact that 82 vacancies were advertised and
the quota fixed for the dependents of
freedom fighters is 2%. Thus, 2% of 82
being more than 1.5 would result into 2
posts in that quota. The law with regard to
rounding off is very clear and well settled.
Where the value is one-half or more, it
has to be rounded off to the next whole
number and where it is less than one-half,
it has to be ignored. In the present case,
2% of 81 comes to 1.62. It being more
than one-half, the value to be taken is 2.
This view is supported by the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of U.P. and another Vs. Pawan
Kumar Tiwari and others reported in
AIR 2005 SC 658.
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006

14. The respondents have, therefore,
to prepare a separate panel of the selected
candidates in the dependents of freedom
fighters quota for 2 posts and thereafter
place them in the respective caste
category. In the present case, as is clear
from
the
averments
contained
in
paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the
quota for the dependents of freedom
fighters has been calculated in the
different
caste
categories.
The
respondents have calculated only one seat
in the general category and no quota in
the other 3 caste categories because 2% of
41 comes to 0.82, which amounts to 1
post and in all the other 3 caste categories,
the vacancies being less than 25, 2% of
each of the vacancies being less than 0.5,
no vacancy of dependents of freedom
fighters quota has been carved out in the
other 3 caste categories.

15. Such application of the quota for
dependents of freedom fighters is contrary
to the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 4 of
1993 and also the Government Order
dated 22.10.2001 and therefore, cannot be
sustained.

16. It is, thus, held that vacancies for
applying reservation pursuant to the U.P.
Act No. 4 of 1993 have to be calculated
from the total number of posts advertised
and not from the number of posts reserved
for OBC, SC/ST and the unreserved posts
for open competition. The correct number
of vacancies would come to 2 and not 1 as
alleged in the counter affidavit.

17. Now coming to the question of
obtaining
minimum
index
in
the
respective caste category we find that
respondents have themselves corrected
their mistake. It has been stated in
paragraph 6 of the supplementary counter
affidavit
filed
on
behalf
of
the
Commission that the Commission has
reviewed its decision, and in view of the
resolution passed in the meeting dated
12.5.2005, it has resolved to scrutinize the
forms of the dependents of freedom
fighter category and to call all the eligible
candidates for interview falling in the said
category. Again, in paragraph 10 of the
same affidavit, it has been stated that
apart from the two petitioners, two more
candidates who fall in the same category
are also required to be called for interview
on the basis of their index assessment
scrutiny marks. For the said purpose,
necessary directions have been issued to
the office of the Commission for calling
the other two candidates for interview
who have not been interviewed so far. It
is, thus, clear that the stand taken in the
counter affidavit with regard to minimum
index, having not been secured by the
applicants of the freedom fighter category
in comparison with the general category,
has been done away with, and the earlier
resolution dated 6th August, 2003 stands
amended and replaced by the resolution
passed in the meeting of the Commission
held on 12th May, 2005. Thus, the said
objection raised in the counter affidavit no
longer exists in view of the decision taken
by the Commission in its meeting dated
12.5.2005. Therefore, the Commission is
required to declare the result of the
petitioners as well as the other candidates
in the category of the dependents of
freedom fighters so that the selected
candidates may be given appointment and
adjusted against their respective caste
categories.

18. According to the reading of
Section 3 of the U.P. Act No.4 of 1993
and also clause 6 of the Government
Order dated 22.10.2001, it is clear that
3 All] Dr. Rajesh Kumar Tewari V. State of U.P. and othes
1009
upon selection in the category of
dependents of freedom fighters, the
selected candidates are to be adjusted in
their respective category of reservation
based upon their caste, and consequently,
they are to occupy a position in the
vacancies advertised in their respective
categories. From the aforesaid, it follows
that there has to be a separate panel of the
selected candidates in the category of
dependents of freedom fighters and after
making such selection, irrespective of the
fact whether they have qualified in the
category of their castes or not, they are to
be placed in their respective categories of
their castes and thereafter, the remaining
positions of that caste category are to be
filled up.

19. With regard to the question of
relief being granted to the petitioners,
learned counsel for the respondents have
urged that the petitioners have not laid
any foundation with regard to application
of quota nor have they sought any relief in
this regard and, therefore, this Court may
not go into this question at all. We are
afraid that such an argument can be
sustained. We are hearing these petitions
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Once it has come to the knowledge of the
Court that the respondents have failed to
follow the statutory provisions or have
acted in violation of statutory provisions,
this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction
can always issue a writ commanding the
respondents to apply the provisions
correctly. Article 226 of the Constitution
confers ample power on High Court to
correct an error which is manifest and
apparent on the face of the record and also
where there is apparent miscarriage of
justice. In the present case, both the
grounds are established. The contention of
the respondents is, therefore, rejected.

20. The action of the respondents in
calculating the quota of the dependents of
freedom fighters being contrary to the
Act, is liable to be set aside and the
respondents are directed to correctly
apply the quota for the dependents of
freedom fighters afresh in the light of
observations made above and thereafter,
prepare a panel of the selected candidates
in the quota of the dependents of freedom
fighters and, accordingly, place them in
their
respective
caste
categories.
Depending upon their placement in the
caste categories, the remaining vacancies
in the caste categories may be filled up.

21. Writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed with costs and it is directed that
the respondents shall declare 2 posts out
of 82 posts of Lecturer in Hindi to be
reserved for dependents of freedom
fighters against Advertisement No. 32 and
after following the revised procedure as
laid down in the decision of the
Commission taken in its meeting dated
12.5.2005 and the observations made in
this judgment declare the result and
further the selected candidates may be
given appointment against the said 2 posts
in accordance with their respective merit.
This exercise may be completed within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
before the respondents. Petition Allowed.
---------
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Contempt No. 13 of 1999

State of U.P.

...Petitioner
Versus
Vishram Singh Raghubanshi, Advocate
District Court, Etawah ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Tripathi
Sri Bhagwat Prasad
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Vishnu Gupta
Sri R.O.V.S. Chauhan
Sri Rakesh Pandey
Sri Pankaj Lal

(A) Contempt of Courts Act-Section 2 (c)
Criminal Contempt Definition-any act by
a person which would tend to interfere
with the administration of justice-which
lawer the authority of court , amounts
contempt of court.

Held: Para 13

In the case of Delhi Judicial Service
Association V. State of Gujrat, reported
in (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 406 the
Apex Court had held "The definition of
criminal contempt is wide enough to
include any act by a person which would
tend to interfere with the administration
of justice or which would lower the
authority of court. The public have a vital
stake
in
effective
and
orderly
administration of justice. The Court has
the duty of protecting the interest of the
community in the due administration of
justice and, so, it is entrusted with the
power to commit for contempt of court,
not to protect the dignity of the Court
against insult or injury, but, to protect
and vindicate the right of the public so
that the administration of justice is not
perverted,
prejudiced,
obstructed
or
interfered
with.
"It
is
a
mode
of
vindicating the majesty of law, in its
active manifestation, against obstruction
and outrage." (Frankfurter, J. in Offutt V.
U.S.)
The
object
and
purpose
of
punishing contempt for interference with
the administration of justice is not to
safeguard or protect the dignity of the
Judge or the Magistrate, but the purpose
is to preserve the authority of the courts
to ensure an ordered life in society."
Case law discussed:
1991 (4) SCC-406

(B) Contempt of Courts Act-Section 12Contempnor a practicing advocate-found
master brain for surrendering one Om
Prakash as an actual accused-abusing
the presiding judge during course of
proceeding-On simple suggestion to ask
question politely instead of loud and
threatening voice-Law does not permit a
lawyer the liberty of causing disrespect
to the court-the conduct of hurling
filthiest
abuses-held-lowered
the
authority
of
court-amounts
to
interference with due course of judicial
proceeding-charges
framed
in
September
2004-in
affidavit
dated
18.10.2005
denied
the
allegationsapology on belated stage-can not be a
weapon to purge the guilt punishment of
3 month simple imprisonment with fine
of Rs.2000/- awarded.

Held: Para 19

In the present case, we are of the firm
opinion that the apology tendered by the
contemnor is not at all bona fide or
genuine.
The
charges
were
framed
against
him
as
back
as
on
27th
September, 2004. In his first affidavit
dated 18th October, 2005 he denied the
allegations. In the second affidavit dated
24th November, 2005 he has made a
show of tendering apology. This apology
is coming forth after he scented that his