# Dr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 383
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-04-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53094 of 2007
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, Kashi Nath Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-ravi-prakash-dwivedi-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41490
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.
Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava
Sri Gautam Baghel
Sri I.A. Siddiqui
Sri M.A. Qadeer
Sri Pushpendra Singh
Sri P.S. Baghel

U.P. Veterinary Group-B Service Rules
1998-Rule
8
(2)-cancellation
of
candidature-on ground petition was not
registered State of U.P. under Section 23
of Indian Veterinary Council Act 1984admittialy
petitioner
possess
every
requisite
qualification-duly
registered
with Jharkhand-under Section 49 and 54
of Act 1984-after depositing certain
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
amount-certificate could be transferred
in State of U.P.-objection raised by
commission-is
the
result
of
misinterpretation
of
Rule
8
(2)-
consequential
direction
given
by
Quashing the order of cancellation of
candidature.

Held: Para 12

We
do
not
find
substance
in
the
objections of the respondents that the
petitioner was not registered under the
Rules to be considered for selection as
Veterinary
Medical
Officer.
The
petitioner's registration in U.P. and its
transfer
after
issuing
'no
objection
certificate'
did
not
render
him
unregistered Veterinary Practitioner. He
continued to be a registered Veterinary
Practitioner with his registration in the
State of Jharkhand. He can get a transfer
of his certificate to the U.P., if he was
selected.

## Text

1 All] Dr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi V. State of U.P. and others
383
has been made to retire in fact on
31.8.2004 and notionally w.e.f. 1.7.1998.
It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner
was allowed to continue in service by the
respondents
between
1.7.1998
and
31.8.2004 during which period he has
performed his duty. There is no indication
of any fraud or misrepresentation on the
part of the petitioner. In such a situation,
it is observed that the respondents shall
not proceed to make any recovery of
salary if the same has been actually paid
to the petitioner between the period
1.7.1998 to 31.8.2004. I am supported in
my view from the decision in the case of
Union of India and others Vs. Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, and
another, 2003 (4) ESC 2006 and in the
case of Duryodhan Lal Jatav Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2005 (2) ALJ 1141. The
contention raised by the learned Standing
Counsel has, therefore, to be rejected on
this count.

7. Apart from this, no other relief
can be granted to the petitioner as he has
conceded to the order dated 4.9.2004. The
calculation of pension shall, therefore, be
made on the basis of the order dated
4.9.2004.

8.

Learned
Standing
counsel
contends that in view of this conceded
position by the petitioner, the writ petition
be disposed of finally at this stage.

9. In view of the aforesaid
submissions advanced at the Bar and the
observations made herein above, this writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to
the respondent No.2 to proceed to finalize
the claim of the petitioner and issue
necessary
directions
to
the
Senior
Treasury Officer, to whom the papers
have already been forwarded and make
payment to which he is entitled in
accordance with law as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of 3
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before him.

10. The petitioner may serve a copy
of this order on the said respondents along
with his specific claim in respect of the
emoluments which are due to him.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE KASHI NATH PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53094 of 2007

Dr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.D. Shukla
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava
Sri Gautam Baghel
Sri I.A. Siddiqui
Sri M.A. Qadeer
Sri Pushpendra Singh
Sri P.S. Baghel

U.P. Veterinary Group-B Service Rules
1998-Rule
8
(2)-cancellation
of
candidature-on ground petition was not
registered State of U.P. under Section 23
of Indian Veterinary Council Act 1984admittialy
petitioner
possess
every
requisite
qualification-duly
registered
with Jharkhand-under Section 49 and 54
of Act 1984-after depositing certain
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
amount-certificate could be transferred
in State of U.P.-objection raised by
commission-is
the
result
of
misinterpretation
of
Rule
8
(2)-
consequential
direction
given
by
Quashing the order of cancellation of
candidature.

Held: Para 12

We
do
not
find
substance
in
the
objections of the respondents that the
petitioner was not registered under the
Rules to be considered for selection as
Veterinary
Medical
Officer.
The
petitioner's registration in U.P. and its
transfer
after
issuing
'no
objection
certificate'
did
not
render
him
unregistered Veterinary Practitioner. He
continued to be a registered Veterinary
Practitioner with his registration in the
State of Jharkhand. He can get a transfer
of his certificate to the U.P., if he was
selected.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior
Advocate,
assisted
by
Sri
Siddharth Khare for the petitioner. Sri
P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel appears for
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission-
respondent No.4. Sri Pankaj Saxena,
learned standing counsel appears for
State-respondents.

2. The petitioner's application for
selection as Veterinary Medical Officer in
question pursuant to the advertisement
dated 29.9.2007 was rejected by the U.P.
Public Service Commission on the ground
that in terms of Rule 8 (2) of the U.P.
Veterinary Group-B Service Rules, 1998
and the advertisement, the petitioner is
not registered as Veterinary Surgeon in
the State of U.P. under Section 23 of the
Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1984 Act').

3. It is not denied that the petitioner
holds requisite qualification i.e. Bachelor
Degree in Veterinary Science & Animal
Husbandry
(B.V.Sc
&
A.H)
from
Chaudhary
Charan
Singh
Haryana
Agriculture University, Hissar, and was
registered with Veterinary Council of
U.P. vide Registration No. U.P.V.C. 3933
dated 23.1.2004. He got selected as
Veterinary Medical Officer in the State of
Jharkhand on which he got his registration
certificate transferred from U.P. to the
State of Jharkhand under Section 52 of
the
1994
Act.
The
petitioner
has
submitted
the
certificates
of
his
registration, in proof thereof with the
application form to the U.P. Public
Service Commission.

4. In the counter affidavit of Sri
A.K.
Singh,
Veterinary
Officer,
Laxmanpur, Pratapgarh filed on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is stated in
paragraph No. 5 that registration in other
State cannot be done till 'no objection
certificate' is issued from the previous
State in which the candidate was
registered as per Rule 52 of Veterinary
Council of India. In paragraph No.6 it is
stated that registration can be done only in
one State Veterinary Council. The U.P.
Veterinary
Council
has
issued
'no
objection certificate' to the petitioner for
getting him registered with the Jharkhand
Veterinary Council. His registration was
automatically
cancelled
from
U.P.
Veterinary Council after issuance of 'no
objection certificate from U.P. Veterinary
Council. Thus he was not registered with
the U.P. Veterinary Council after getting
'no
objection
certificate'
issued
on
9.7.2007.
1 All] Dr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi V. State of U.P. and others
385
5. The petitioner has filed an
amendment application challenging Rule
8 (2) of the U.P. Veterinary Group-B
Service Rules, 1998 as ultra vires and
inoperative.

6. After hearing the counsels for the
parties, we find that the objections taken
by the U.P. Public Service Commission
are
wholly
illegal,
irrational
and
superfluous.

7. The petitioner was registered with
the
U.P.
Veterinary
Council
and
consequently he was also registered with
Veterinary
Council
of
India,
vide
Registration No. V.C.I/002728 dated
15.1.2007. The Veterinary Council of
India certified that the petitioner was duly
registered under the provisions of the
Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, with
date and place of his registration with the
State Veterinary Council shown as
UPVC/3933 dated 23.1.2004 with the
Veterinary Council of U.P.

8. The State Veterinary Councils are
established under Section 32 of the Act of
1984. Under Section 44 of the Act, the
State Government provides a register of
veterinary practitioners known as the
State Veterinary Register of the State. The
qualifications are to be entered in the
register, after scrutiny of application for
registration under Section 47. Section 52
of the 1984 Act provides transfer of
registration where a registered veterinary
practitioner of one State is practising
veterinary medicine in another State, on
payment of prescribed fee.

9. It is not denied that the petitioner
was not only qualified, but was registered
in the State of U.P. After his selection as
Veterinary Medical Officer in the State of
Jharkhand, his registration was transferred
in accordance with provisions of the Act.
He was therefore entitled to be treated as
a duly qualified and registered Veterinary
Practitioner. He was not required to get
his name registered in the State of U.P.,
again only for applying for the post in the
State of U.P. His registration in any State
entitled him to be registered in the
Veterinary Council of India, under
Section 24 of the Act.

10. The object and purpose of
requiring a person to have a registration
before he applies for appointment as
Veterinary Officer is to verify that the
person is qualified, fulfils all the terms
and conditions of valid practitioner under
the Act and may be subjected to
disciplinary proceedings if the occasion
so arises.

11. The petitioner has challenged
Rule 8 (2) of the U.P. Veterinary Group-B
Service Rules, 1998 requiring a person
should be registered with Veterinary
Council of U.P. for the appointment. We
do not find that the rule to be illegal,
irrational or arbitrary. It only needs to be
correctly
interpreted.
A
narrow
or
pedantic interpretation would defeat the
purpose of enacting the rule.

12. We do not find substance in the
objections of the respondents that the
petitioner was not registered under the
Rules to be considered for selection as
Veterinary
Medical
Officer.
The
petitioner's registration in U.P. and its
transfer
after
issuing
'no
objection
certificate'
did
not
render
him
unregistered Veterinary Practitioner. He
continued to be a registered Veterinary
Practitioner with his registration in the
State of Jharkhand. He can get a transfer
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
of his certificate to the U.P., if he was
selected.

13. The writ petition is allowed. The
letter
of
the
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission rejecting the petitioner's
candidature for want of registration with
U.P.
Veterinary
Council,
as
a
precondition for consideration for the post
of Veterinary Medical Officer, is set
aside. We direct the Commission to
declare the petitioner's result, and if he is
selected and recommended, to the State
Government, to give him appointment in
accordance with law very expeditiously,
and if possible within a period of three
months from the date a certified copy of
this
order
is
produced
before
the
Commission and the concerned authority.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4686 of 2006

Committee
of
Management,
Anjuman
Madarsa Zeenatul Islam, Amrodha, Tehsil
Bhoganipur, District Kanpur Dehat through
its Manager and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri S.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Principle
of Natural Justice-election dispute-claim
set up by reval claimants-enquiry report
against the petitioner relied without
affording opportunity-without giving the
copy of said reports-order entailing civil
consequences-can not be passed, nor
such
report
can
be
the
basis
for
impugned order-quashed.

Held: Para 66

As the said enquiry was conducted
without any intimation to the petitioners
and behind the back of the petitioners
and even copy of the Enquiry Report was
not given to the petitioners, the Deputy
Registrar (respondent no.2) has acted in
violation of the principles of natural
justice in placing reliance on the said
enquiry
and
the
Enquiry
Report
submitted as a result thereof while
passing
the
impugned
order.
The
impugned
order
dated
13.12.2005
passed
by
the
Deputy
Registrar
(respondent
no.2)
has,
thus,
been
passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice.

Case law discussed:
2005 (61) ALR 74, 2009 (75) ALR 369.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. The petitioners have filed the
present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, interalia,
praying for quashing the order dated
13.12.2005 (Annexure-10 to the writ
petition) passed by the Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur
(respondent no.2) whereby the papers
submitted by the petitioners regarding the
elections allegedly held on 28.11.2004
were
disapproved
and
the
papers
submitted
by
the
respondent
no.4
regarding the elections allegedly held on
31.7.2004 were approved, and further, for
directing the respondents to approve the
papers submitted by the petitioners in