# Food Corporation of India and others v. H.N. Srivastava

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 510
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-04-07
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 444 of 2003
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, Ashok Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/food-corporation-of-india-and-others-v-h-n-srivastava-41911
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226punishment-reversion-compulsory
retirement
alongwith
fine
of
Rs.
166320/-inspite of accepting the report
of enquiry officer by which negligence in
duty-no charge of misappropriation or
loss proved-held-power exercised by the
disciplinary
authority
amounts
to
colorable
exercise
of
power-the
approach of disciplinary authority is self
contradictory-order of recovery-set-aside corporation to refund entire amount
with interest.

Held: Para 10

We have gone through the order passed
by the learned Single Judge on 22nd
April, 2003, impugned in this appeal, and
the order of the disciplinary authority
2 All] Food Corporation of India and others V. H.N. Srivastava
511
along with the report of the enquiry
officer. We agree with the fact that there
is no reflection in the report of the
enquiry officer that there was any
pecuniary loss. On the contrary it was
held that there was lapse or negligence
on the part of the delinquent officer in
respect of both the charges i.e. Article
Nos. 1 and 4. Against this background,
we
are
of
the
view
that
either
disciplinary authority will accept the
report of the enquiry officer in toto or he
will disagree and upon service of second
show cause and obtaining reply pass a
fresh
order
with
reasons
giving
opportunity of hearing. In this case, the
disciplinary authority has accepted the
report in one hand by saying that the
enquiry officer has assessed all the
documentary evidences and witnesses in
a
judicious
manner
particularly
in
respect of the Article Nos. I and IV, but
on the other hand, imposed the penalty
of Rs.1,99,897/- under Regulation 56 of
the Food Corporation of India (Staff)
Regulation, 1971. Both the stands are
self contradictory in nature. Therefore, it
is a clear case of disagreement with the
report of the enquiry officer, without
affording any opportunity of hearing.
Consequently, imposition of penalty of
recovery of Rs.1,99,897/- without any
pecuniary
loss
to
the
appellantCorporation is colourable exercise of
power. That apart, the respondent- writ
petitioner
has
suffered
two
punishments; (i) reversion, and (ii)
compulsory retirement. Even thereafter
imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs.
1,99,897/- without any pecuniary loss,
as established before the enquiry officer
and as accepted by the disciplinary
authority as judicious, is not only harsh
but disproportionate in nature.

## Text

510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
admitted and the respective University
accepts,
then
their
admission
was
complete. The action of the University as
the
allotting
authority
in
allotting
candidates in the second round against the
said purported vacancy would thus be
arbitrary and consequential action of the
Lucknow University after the allotment
has been completed, is illegal. The
admission could only be cancelled by the
respective Colleges or the University to
which it was affiliated and that too after
complying with the principles of natural
justice. If the College had admitted the
students contrary to the procedure in the
brochure, action if and at all is to be taken
against the College authorities and not the
students. There was nothing in the
allotment letter which can result in holding
that if the students had not reported to the
seat confirmation counter even though the
deposit was in excess of the fees and the
College had admitted them, then those
admissions were non-est.

16. For all the aforesaid reasons, the
appeal is allowed. The impugned order is
set aside and the petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (C) which reads as
under:

"a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties to allow the petitioner to
pursue his studies and also to allow him to
appear
in
the
forthcoming
B.Ed.
Examinations for the academic session
2010-11 and to declare his results."

17. We make it clear that if any other
candidate had been admitted pursuant to
the second round of counseling and their
admission does not affect the right of the
candidates admitted in the first round, then
in that event, the admission of such
candidates would also not be interfered
with. We further direct that the authority
which is entrusted with the procedure for
selection does not make it a requirement
for the students to pay additional amount
towards fees, if the fees can be adjusted
from the sum of Rs.5000/- or such as the
students may be called upon to deposit.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA,J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA,J.

Special Appeal No. 444 of 2003

Food Corporation of India and others

 ...Appellants
Versus
H.N. Srivastava

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Satya Prakash

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Arvind Srivastava

Constitution
of
India-Article
226punishment-reversion-compulsory
retirement
alongwith
fine
of
Rs.
166320/-inspite of accepting the report
of enquiry officer by which negligence in
duty-no charge of misappropriation or
loss proved-held-power exercised by the
disciplinary
authority
amounts
to
colorable
exercise
of
power-the
approach of disciplinary authority is self
contradictory-order of recovery-set-aside corporation to refund entire amount
with interest.

Held: Para 10

We have gone through the order passed
by the learned Single Judge on 22nd
April, 2003, impugned in this appeal, and
the order of the disciplinary authority
2 All] Food Corporation of India and others V. H.N. Srivastava
511
along with the report of the enquiry
officer. We agree with the fact that there
is no reflection in the report of the
enquiry officer that there was any
pecuniary loss. On the contrary it was
held that there was lapse or negligence
on the part of the delinquent officer in
respect of both the charges i.e. Article
Nos. 1 and 4. Against this background,
we
are
of
the
view
that
either
disciplinary authority will accept the
report of the enquiry officer in toto or he
will disagree and upon service of second
show cause and obtaining reply pass a
fresh
order
with
reasons
giving
opportunity of hearing. In this case, the
disciplinary authority has accepted the
report in one hand by saying that the
enquiry officer has assessed all the
documentary evidences and witnesses in
a
judicious
manner
particularly
in
respect of the Article Nos. I and IV, but
on the other hand, imposed the penalty
of Rs.1,99,897/- under Regulation 56 of
the Food Corporation of India (Staff)
Regulation, 1971. Both the stands are
self contradictory in nature. Therefore, it
is a clear case of disagreement with the
report of the enquiry officer, without
affording any opportunity of hearing.
Consequently, imposition of penalty of
recovery of Rs.1,99,897/- without any
pecuniary
loss
to
the
appellantCorporation is colourable exercise of
power. That apart, the respondent- writ
petitioner
has
suffered
two
punishments; (i) reversion, and (ii)
compulsory retirement. Even thereafter
imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs.
1,99,897/- without any pecuniary loss,
as established before the enquiry officer
and as accepted by the disciplinary
authority as judicious, is not only harsh
but disproportionate in nature.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala,J.)

1. Amitava Lala, J.-- This special
appeal is arising out of the judgement and
order dated 22nd April, 2003 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 33047 of 2002 (H.N.
Srivastava Vs. Food Corporation of India
and others), thereby allowing the writ
petition in favour of the respondent-writ
petitioner.

2. The main contention of the
respondent-writ petitioner is that in spite
of none of the charges as levelled against
him having been proved before the
enquiry officer except some irregularities
in properly recording details on the
concerned register and the stock stored at
various places of depot, the disciplinary
authority passed an order dated 21st May,
2002
reverting
the
respondent-writ
petitioner from the post of AG-I to AG-II
(D) and also imposed penalty to the tune
of Rs.1,99,897/- on account of pecuniary
loss. Such order of reversion was
challenged by filing writ petition before
the learned Single Judge, when upon
hearing the parties the Court was pleased
to allow the writ petition and quash the
order dated 21st May, 2002 passed by the
authority concerned. Such order of
learned Single Judge dated 22nd April,
2003 is impugned in this appeal.

3. This appeal was preferred on
22nd May, 2003 and on 23rd May, 2003
upon hearing learned Counsel for the
parties a Division Bench of this Court has
stayed the operation of the order of
learned Single Judge dated 22nd April,
2003 with a liberty to file an application
for vacation, variation or extension of the
order. Hence, the order of reversion was
in operation. Respondent-writ petitioner
was allowed to work as AG-II (D) for a
period of four years. The tenure of four
years was to expire in May, 2006.
However,
when
the
respondent-writ
petitioner was working as AG-II (D), he
was compulsorily retired in the year 2004
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
in another departmental proceeding vide
order dated 26th October, 2004 arising
out of selfsame incident. Neither he has
challenged such order in any civil
proceeding nor in the writ proceeding.
Additionally, he has received his full
retiral benefits i.e. leave encashment,
gratuity, contributory provident fund, etc.
after his retirement in 2004 itself. No dues
are pending. However, the appellant
Corporation has recovered amount of
alleged loss i.e. Rs.1,99,897/- as penalty
from the salary of the delinquent.

4. It appears to us that scope of
dispute at this stage is limited to that
extent in view of the facts that the
respondent-writ petitioner continued in
service as AG-II (D) pursuant to stay
order of the Division Bench and has been
subjected
to
compulsory
retirement,
which was given effect to with benefits.

5. We have gone through the records
and found that though the charges are
moulded but it appears that the orders of
reversion and compulsory retirement are
more or less arising out of the similar
incident. In both the cases i.e. reversion
and compulsory retirement, the article of
charges are as follows:

Article of Charges in the case of
reversion:

"ARTICLE NO. I:

He
misappropriated
89
bags
weighing 83-50-000 Qtls. wheat at Mandi
Yard Gola from stock No. R/2/1. He
caused financial loss of Rs.33,577/- (@
Rs.402/- per Qntl) in connivance with
Shri Mohd. Ubaid, AG-II (D) for his
personal gain.

ARTICLE NO. II:

He misappropriated 6409 bags =
6412.94.000 Qtls. wheat during 1-4-95 to
30-6-96 valuing Rs. 25,78,001.18 (@
Rs.402/- per Qtl.) in connivance with Shri
Mohd. Ubaid, AG-II (D) for his personal
gain.

ARTICLE NO. III:

He misappropriated about 228''A'
class gunnies valuing Rs.4,560/- in
connivance with Shri Mohd. Ubadi, Ex.
AG-II (D) for his personal gain.

ARTICLE NO. IV:

He misappropriated 8316 B.T. ''A'
class
gunnies
by
showing
false
replacement at F.S.D. Gola valuing
Rs.1,66,320/- in connivance with Shri
Mohd. Ubadi, Ex. AG-II (D) for his
personal gain.

ARTICLE NO. V:

He misappropriated 697 B.T. ''A'
class
gunnies
by
showing
false
replacement at Railhead Gola valuing
Rs.13,940/- for his personal gain."

Article of Charges in the case of
compulsory retirement:

"Article-I

Shri
H.N.
Srivastava,
misappropriated 6580 bags = 6248-77000
qtls.
wheat
by
issuing
false
acknowledgement
and
payment
in
connivance with Late Shri Mohd. Ubaid
AG-II (D), Shri Swami Nath Shukla, AGII (D), Shri A.K. Singh, AM (AC) Shri
S.K. Shukla, TA-I, Shri M.A. Siddiqui,
2 All] Food Corporation of India and others V. H.N. Srivastava
513
TA-I, Shri Raj Pal Verma, TA-III. He
caused financial loss of Rs.31,86,872-70
paise to the Corporation for his personal
gain.

Article-II

Shri
H.N.
Srivastava,
misappropriated 15394 bags SB = 769700-000 qtls wheat against FCI wheat
Purchase Centre Gola in connivance with
Purchase Point Staff, Handling Agent and
Depot Staff of Mandi Yard Gola. He
caused financial loss of Rs.52,95,536/- to
the Food Corporation of India for his
personal gain.

Article-III

He misappropriated 900 bags = 05500-000 qtls. wheat by taking less opening
balance in quarterly PV of 30-6-98 in
connivance with Late Shri Mohd. Ubaid,
AG-II (D) & Shri S.N. Shukla, and
thereby
caused
financial
loss
of
Rs.5,88,240-00 for his personal gain.

Article-IV

During Rabi procurement season
1998-99 Shri H.N. Srivastava, AM (D)
managed acceptance of short weight bags
of wheat at Mandi Yard Gola and issued
acknowledgement
for
quantity
as
mentioned in movement challans in
connivance with S/Shri Late Shri Mohd.
Ubaid, AG-II (D), Rajender Kumar, AGII (D), Mohd. Abrar Khan, AG-III (D).
He also got accepted wheat stocks in old
gunnies against new gunnies. He got
stored wheat stocks without weightment
and caused storage loss of 18749-15-300
qtls and thereby caused financial loss of
Rs.1,28,99,415-00 for his personal gain.

Article-V

He misappropriated 6 truck load of
wheat received from wheat purchase
centre
Rehaia,
the
thereby
caused
financial loss of Rs.5,84,800-00 to the
Food Corporation of India, for his
personal gain.

Article-VI

He did not distribute the depot work
properly amongst the Asstt. Gr-I (Depot)
and Asstt. Gr-II at FSD, Gola. He allotted
maximum of work of depot to late Shri
Mohd. Abaid, AG-II (D), while other
depot staff like Shri K.B. Lal, AG-I (D),
P.K. Shukla, AG-II (D) and two other
AG-II (D) were posted at Gola.

Article-VII

Shri H.N. Srivastava, AM (D)
allowed to store wheat stocks at Kachcha
and low lying ground at Mandi Yard Gola
without making proper arrangement of
polythene covers, proper dunnage, ropes
and drainage system in Mandi Yard Gola.
He did not divert the stocks to rake
loading point Bisan inspite of order from
DM (Q.C.) Shri B.L. Kureel. He allowed
storage of wheat stock on Kachcha, low
lying land, which caused damages to the
wheat stocks to the tune of 4637-63-00
qtls valuing Rs.31,86,800/- The FCI
suffered from loss of Rs.31,86,800/- due
to his wrong and malafide decision.

Article-VIII

Shri H.N. Srivastava, AM (D) issued
fictitious work slips to the HTC of
1,04,938 bags SBT wheat against which
work was not done by HTC. Shri R.C.
Gupta, as the said stocks were received
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
from Wheat Purchase Centre Gola on
book balance. He embezzled about
Rs.15,000/- in connivance with S/Shri
Late Shri Mohd. Abaid, AG-II (D) and
R.C. Gupta, HTC for his personal gain."

6. It is contended by the learned
Counsel appearing for the appellant that
so far as the order of compulsory
retirement is concerned, the same is not
subject matter of the writ petition and
there is a provision of appeal from such
order. It is open to the respondent-writ
petitioner to prefer appeal or not,
particularly when he has accepted the
order of compulsory retirement with all
financial benefits.

7. So far as the case of reversion is
concerned, the enquiry officer held that
delinquent is not guilty of charges of
Article Nos. 2, 3 and 5 but charges of
Article Nos. 1 and 4 and that too in a
limited manner i.e. carelessness of the
delinquent officer. Inference drawn by the
enquiry officer with regard to Article No.
1 is as follows:

"1)
The
AM
(D)
Shri
H.N.
Srivastava has verified 1548 bags in stack
No. R/2/1 in the quarterly P.V. Report 313-95 and 30-6-95; whereas Shri Mohd.
Qumar, AM (PV) has verified 1459 bags
as per his P.V. Report 2/A P.V.

2) The difference of 89 bags have
been noticed in both the documents.

3) The C.O. has pointed out that AM
(PV) has conducted the verification on
25-9-95 after the gap of six months from
31-3-95.

4) He has further stated that R/2/1
was stacked on the road side and 1548
bags were stacked in that stack. In the
first week of Sept. some bags were fallen
out due to jerk of truck passing through
the road side. These bags were fallen out
and could not be stacked in the same stack
as such these 89 bags were kept adjacent
to stack No. M/4/2, M/4/5 and M/4/9.

5) The AM (PV) has verified 1349
bags in stack No. M/4/2, 1331 in M/4/5
and 1297 in M/4/9 against the Book
Balance of 1296. No doubt that this
difference comes of 89 bags and made up
of stack No. R/2/1.

6) This plea of C.O. can not be
agreed because he should have given a
remark in his report that these bags have
been fallen down and stacked nearby
other stacks. No doubt there is no
difference but the lapse on the part of
C.O. can not be ruled out.

7) He should have directed during his
visit to Unit I/C Shri Mohd. Ubaid and
Rajeshwar Singh Depot I/c to account for
these bags against these stacks or make a
remark in the stackwise register but he
failed to issue the instructions during his
visit to FSD Gola.

8) As regards showing the quantity
of 147 MT in R/2/1 in the M.T.R. for the
months of April' 95, July' 95 and Aug.'95
by AM (QC) also do not fill up the gap
because generally the AM (QC) do not
physically verify the stocks and take the
figures as mentioned by the depot and it
might have happened the same in this
case.

9) It is true that total stock position
has been tallied by Sh. Mohd. Quamar
with the Master Ledger of FCI Gola for
2 All] Food Corporation of India and others V. H.N. Srivastava
515
the month of Sept.'95 and no difference
was noticed.

10) Not only the C.O. is responsible
for these 89 bags being a supervisory
Officer, Shri Rajeshwar Singh, Depot I/c
is wholly and personally responsible in
addition to the custodian. The custodian
Shri Mohd. Ubaid has already expired as
such no need to comment but Shri
Rajeshwar Singh is liable for answering
these lapses.

11) The C.O. has verified 1569 bags
in R/6, R/11 and R/12 when there is no
bag as per stackwise register. 1708 bags
in M/2/15 and 1296 bags in M/2/16 and
there was no stock. He has also verified
1569 bags in R/4/6 against 383, 1296 in
M/3/5 against 562, 1296 bags against
M/3/9 against 720. It proves that he has
not carefully carried out the job."

With regard to charge of Article No.
IV, important part of the inference of the
enquiry officer is as follows:

"4) No doubt, Shri Rajeshwar Singh,
as Shri Mohd. Ubaid has died, is
answerable for this negligency on his part.

5) As per Exb.D-3, 1-15-000, 0-72000, 0-52-000 jute twine has been
purchased and consumed at Gola during
95-96, for stitching of the replaced
gunnies.

6) The position given by AM (A/Cs)/
(Compilation),
Distt.
Office,
the
investigation is incorrect when he has
given a certificate for purchase of jute
twine and already adjusted by him vide
J.E. No. 260/5, 385/10, 233/2.

7) Rs. 79,064/- has been paid as per
Exb.D-4
to
casual
labourers
for
replacement of gunny at Gola during 9596 and this amount has already been
adjusted vide J.E. No. 385/3, 385/10 and
235/2.

8) It proves that the replacement has
been during the operation at Gola and
gunnies have not been misappropriated
except these have not been entered on
day-to-day basis, for which AG-I(D) is
responsible and it also reflects on the part
of Supervisory Officer."

8.

However,
the
disciplinary
authority by its order of punishment dated
21/22nd May, 2002 not only reverted the
delinquent but also imposed penalty of
recovery of Rs.1,99,897/- in spite of
accepting and appreciating the assessment
of the enquiry officer in a judicious
manner. The relevant portion of such
order of disciplinary authority is quoted
below:

"I have gone through the contents of
the charge sheet, the inquiry report and
reply submitted by the C.O. on the
findings of Inquiry Officer along with
other relevant materials on record in a
careful manner. I observe that the I.O. has
assessed all the documentary evidences
and witnesses linked with the article I &
IV
in
a
judicious
manner,
which
establishes
complicity
and
lack
of
supervision of C.O. in misappropriation
of 89 bags of wheat at Mandi Yard Gola
and misappropriation of 8316 BT ''A'
class
gunnies
by
showing
false
replacement at FSD Gola resulting into
pecuniary
loss
of
Rs.33577/-
and
Rs.166,320
respectively
to
the
Corporation. Moreover in regard to
articles II, III & V which have not been
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
proved by the I.O. on some technical
ground I am of the opinion that the C.O.
can't absolve himself from the guilt of his
supervisory lapses on the basis of varion
please taken by him in his reply.

Taking into account aforesaid facts
and observation, I infer that the C.O. is
definitely responsible for the charges
levelled against him about his complicity
which led to loss of said amount to the
Corporation and for such misconduct on
his part he deserves a penalty to meet the
end of justice.

Now, therefore, I Kush Verma, Zonal
Manager (N) in exercise of the powers
conferred under Regulation 56 of FCI
(Staff) Regulation 1971 hereby impose
the penalty of recovery of Rs.1,99,897
(Rupees one lac ninety nine thousand
eight hundred ninety seven) and reversion
to the post of AG II (D) for a preiod of 4
years upon said Shri H.N. Srivastava, now
AG-I (D) with immediate effect."

9. Such order was set aside by the
learned Single Judge, but the Division
Bench while entertaining the special
appeal at the initial stage passed an order
of stay, and as a result whereof the
delinquent officer continued in service in
the reverted post being AG-II (D) till his
compulsory
retirement
subsequent
thereto. At the time of coming to
conclusion, the learned Single Judge
passed the following order:

"In view of the analysis made above,
it is clear that on the facts and finding so
given
by
the
enquiry
officer, the
petitioner was never found to be guilty
of misappropriation causing pecuniary
loss to the Corporation, rather slight
negligence in discharge of duty was found
but the disciplinary authority by not
properly noticing the finding of the
enquiry officer, without assigning any
reason in respect to the reply submitted by
the petitioner and even by accepting the
charges in respect to item no. 2, 3 and 5
which have not been found to be proved
against the petitioner and for which, he
was never given any opportunity, the
impugned decision has been taken. Thus
the impugned order is vitiated in law,
entitling the petitioner to get relief from
this Court.

For the reasons recorded above, this
writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the respondent
no. 2 (annexure 5 to the writ petition)
dated 21.5.2002 is hereby quashed."

10. We have gone through the order
passed by the learned Single Judge on
22nd April, 2003, impugned in this
appeal, and the order of the disciplinary
authority along with the report of the
enquiry officer. We agree with the fact
that there is no reflection in the report of
the enquiry officer that there was any
pecuniary loss. On the contrary it was
held that there was lapse or negligence on
the part of the delinquent officer in
respect of both the charges i.e. Article
Nos. 1 and 4. Against this background, we
are of the view that either disciplinary
authority will accept the report of the
enquiry officer in toto or he will disagree
and upon service of second show cause
and obtaining reply pass a fresh order
with reasons giving opportunity of
hearing. In this case, the disciplinary
authority has accepted the report in one
hand by saying that the enquiry officer
has assessed all the documentary
evidences and witnesses in a judicious
manner particularly in respect of the
2 All] Smt. Uma Gupta V. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and others
517
Article Nos. I and IV, but on the other
hand,
imposed
the
penalty
of
Rs.1,99,897/- under Regulation 56 of the
Food
Corporation
of
India
(Staff)
Regulation, 1971. Both the stands are self
contradictory in nature. Therefore, it is a
clear case of disagreement with the report
of the enquiry officer, without affording
any opportunity of hearing. Consequently,
imposition of penalty of recovery of
Rs.1,99,897/- without any pecuniary loss
to the appellant-Corporation is colourable
exercise of power. That apart, the
respondent- writ petitioner has suffered
two punishments; (i) reversion, and (ii)
compulsory retirement. Even thereafter
imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs.
1,99,897/- without any pecuniary loss, as
established before the enquiry officer and
as accepted by the disciplinary authority
as judicious, is not only harsh but
disproportionate in nature.

11. It is to be remembered that
principle of unjust enrichment is not
required to be looked from the angle of
fiscal disputes but from the angle of
other disputes like a dispute between
master and servant, who is not in equal
bargaining position with the other,
particularly when the Government or
governmental bodies claim to be model
employer.

12. In further, rights and duties are
occupying two distinct places. Definitely
one can be required to be punished for
just cause but not for unjust cause. It is
also to be seen from the social point of
view. Due to commercial or economical
globalization, we can not forget the
preamble of the Constitution. This is the
case where imposition of penalty is
absolutely unjusticiable on the part of the
appellant and as such, the amount of
penalty, which has been recovered by the
appellant
from
the
respondent-writ
petitioner, is required to be returned to
the respondent-writ petitioner within a
period of one month from this date,
failing which it will carry simple interest
@ 6% per annum till the date of actual
payment.

13. Accordingly, the special appeal
is
disposed
of,
however,
without
imposing any cost. Interim order, if any,
is merged with the final order.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 463 of 2010

Smt. Uma Gupta

 ...Appellant
Versus
District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad
and others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anil Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Education Service Selection Board
Act
1982-Section
33(c)
iii-ARegularization-Petitioner/Appellant
continuously working since the date of
her
initial
appointment-till
date
of
commencement of Act-juniors already
regularized, except the appellant-Single
Judge view-regarding negative equalitynot proper after having such clear cut
Statutory Provision to the extent if more
than one teachers appointed on same
day-elder
in
age
entitled
for
recommendation.