# Hari Shanker Sahu & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** Writ A No. 25974 of 2018
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 25974 of 2018
- **Bench:** Surya Parakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-shanker-sahu-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46287
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Education - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921- Chapter II, Appendix
"A" - Interpretation - Casus Omisus - A
Judge must not alter the material of which
the Act is woven, but he can and should
iron out the creases. (Para 12, 16)

It is not allowable to read words in a statute
which are not there, but where alternative lies
between either supplying by implication words
which appear to have been accidently omitted,
or adopting a construction which deprives
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certain existing words of all meaning, it is
permissible to supply the words. (Para 14)
The controversy in the present case is regarding
the qualifications given under Clauses (a) and
(b) of the respective statute; whether both need
to be possessed by the candidate or possessing
one of them would make the candidate eligible
for appointment as teacher (Silai subject) for
High School. (Para 5)

The Court held that the word "or" between
Clause (a) and Clause (b) has been somehow
missed. It is apparent drafting error or
accidental omission. If the word "and" is read
between
these
two
clauses,
then
the
qualifications mentioned in these two clauses
would not only lead to irreconcilable conflict but
would also result in absurdity and manifest
contradiction and shall defeat the apparent
purpose of the enactment for recruitment on the
post of teacher. (Para 17, 18)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

3-5 All. Hari Shanker Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1005
act fairly will vary from case to case.
Shortly put, the grounds upon which an
administrative action is subject to control
by judicial review can be classified as
under :

(I) Illegality : This means the
decision-maker must understand correctly
the law that regulates his decision- making
power and must give effect to it.

(ii)
Irrationality,
namely,
Wednesbury unreasonableness.

(iii) Procedural impropriety."

14. Ho'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Heinz India Private Ltd. And
another vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2012)
5 Supreme Court Cases 443 after placing
the reliance on the judgment of Reid Vs.
Secy. Of State for Scotland (1999) 1 ALL
ER 481 (HL) held that Judicial review
involves a challenge to the legal validity of
the decision. It does not allow the court of
review to examine the evidence with a view
to forming its own view about the
substantial merits of the case. It may be that
the tribunal whose decision is being
challenged has done something which it
had no lawful authority to do. It may have
abused or misused the authority which it
had. It may have departed from the
procedures which either by statute or at
common law as a matter of fairness it ought
to have observed. As regards the decisions
itself it may be found to be perverse or
irrational or grossly disproportionate to
what was required. Or the decision may be
found to be erroneous in respect of a legal
deficiency, as for example, through the
absence of evidence, or of sufficient
evidence, to support it, or through account
being taken of irrelevant matter, or through
a failure for any reason to take account of a
relevant
matter,
or
through
some
misconstruction of the terms of the
statutory provision which the decision
maker is required to apply. But while the
evidence may have to be explored in order
to see if the decision is vitiated by such
legal deficiencies it is perfectly clear that in
case of review, as distinct from an ordinary
appeal, the court may not set about forming
its own preferred view of evidence.

15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ
petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

16. No order as to costs.
----------

(2020)03-05ILR A1005
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PARAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Writ A No. 25974 of 2018

Hari Shanker Sahu & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shantanu Khare, Sri Ashok Khare

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Sri Satyaveer
Singh

A. Civil Law-Education - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921- Chapter II, Appendix
"A" - Interpretation - Casus Omisus - A
Judge must not alter the material of which
the Act is woven, but he can and should
iron out the creases. (Para 12, 16)

It is not allowable to read words in a statute
which are not there, but where alternative lies
between either supplying by implication words
which appear to have been accidently omitted,
or adopting a construction which deprives
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certain existing words of all meaning, it is
permissible to supply the words. (Para 14)
The controversy in the present case is regarding
the qualifications given under Clauses (a) and
(b) of the respective statute; whether both need
to be possessed by the candidate or possessing
one of them would make the candidate eligible
for appointment as teacher (Silai subject) for
High School. (Para 5)

The Court held that the word "or" between
Clause (a) and Clause (b) has been somehow
missed. It is apparent drafting error or
accidental omission. If the word "and" is read
between
these
two
clauses,
then
the
qualifications mentioned in these two clauses
would not only lead to irreconcilable conflict but
would also result in absurdity and manifest
contradiction and shall defeat the apparent
purpose of the enactment for recruitment on the
post of teacher. (Para 17, 18)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Reema Aggrawal Vs. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC
199 (Para 12)

2. Padma Sundara Rao Vs. St. of T.N., (2002) 3
SCC 533 (Para 13)

3. Surjit Singh Karla Vs. U.O.I., (1991) 2 SCC 87
(Para 14)

4. Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Essar Power
Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 755 (Para 15)

5. Hameedia Hardware Stores Vs. B. Mohan Lal
Sowear, (1988) 2 SCC 513 (Para 16)

Present petition is against decision dated
31.10.2018, passed by U.P. Secondary
Education
Service
Selection
Board,
Allahabad.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek
Sekhar Ojha and Sri Seemant Singh learned
counsels for the petitioners, Sri A.K.S.
Parihar and Sri Mritunjay Tiwari, learned
standing counsel for the State-respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Anil Singh learned
counsel
for
respondent
no.3
-
U.P.
Secondary Education Service Selection
Board, Allahabad.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present
case are that pursuant to Advertisement
No.1/2013
inviting
applications
for
recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers
in the subject "Silai". The petitioners and
others
submitted
applications.
They
appeared in written examination and
interview. According to the U.P. Secondary
Education
Service
Selection
Board,
Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the
"Selection Board") all the petitioners do not
possess
qualification
as
provided
in
Appendix "A" in Chapter II of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921. For the
aforesaid reasons the selection board found
that none of the petitioners may be
recommended for appointment on the post
of Teacher (Silai). Accordingly order to this
effect was passed on 31.10.2018 which is
reproduced below:-

"m0iz0 ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok
p;u cksMZ] bykgkcknA

foKfIr

i=kad& 1410@004@1⁄420181⁄2 p;u
@2018&19 fnukad 31-10-2018

foKkiu la[;k&1@2013 ds ek/;e ls
foKkfir izf'kf{kr Lukrd flykbZ fo"k; ds inksa ds
izfr vfUre p;u ifj.kke rS;kj djrs le;
vH;fFkZ;ksa dh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk@izf'k{k.k dh tkWp esas
;g ik;k x;k fd fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ ds ikl
b.VjehfM,V f'k{kk vf/kfu;e 1921 ds v/;k;
&02 ds ifjf'k"V ^^d^^ esa mfYyf[kr flykbZ fo"k;
gsrq vfuok;Z 'kSf{kd@izf'k{k.k ;ksX;rk /kkfjr ugha
dh x;h gSA

mDr ds lECkU/k esa p;u cksMZ us vius
cSBd fnukad 26-10-2018 esas ;g fu.kZ; fy;k fd
3-5 All. Hari Shanker Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1007
pwWfd dksbZ Hkh vH;FkhZ fu/kkZfjr vgZrk /kkfjr ugha
djrs gS vr,o bl fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa fdlh
vH;FkhZ dh laLrqfr djuk fu;ekuqdwy ugha gksxkA
vRk% foKkiu la[;k&1@2013 ds flykbZ fo"k; ds
p;u dk fujLr fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k
gSA

lfpo

m0 iz0 ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok
p;u cksMZ

 bykgkckn

i`0la0%&
@004@1⁄420181⁄2@p;u@2018&19 rn~fnukad

izfrfyfi&
fuEufyf[kr
vuqHkkxksa
dks
lqpukFkZA

1- vf/k;kpu vuqHkkx@okn vuqHkkxA

2-xkMZ i=koyh

lfpo

m0 iz0 ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok
p;u cksMZ

 bykgkckn^^

3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid
decision of the Selection Board, dated
31.10.2018 the petitioners have filed the
present writ petition.

4. The educational qualification for
the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Silai)
is provided in Appendix "A" at Serial
No.44 under Chapter II of the Act, 1921
(Hindi version and English version both)
which is reproduced below :-

Hindi version

''44- flykbZ v/;kid bUVjehfM,V 1⁄4d1⁄2
flykbZ ds lkFk b.VjehfM,V

lh0Vh0

1⁄4d{kk 11&121⁄2ds fy,
1⁄4[k1⁄2
b.VjehfM,V RkFkk

lykbZ esa

1⁄411⁄2 izse egkfo?kky;]
o`nkou ls fMIyksek
 fo'ks"k

vFkok

 ;ksX;rk

1⁄421⁄2vk;Z lekt Vsyfjax bULVhV~;wV] y[kuÅ
ls

fMIyksek
RkFkk
gkbZLdwy d{kkvksa esa fo"k; ds 3 o"kZ

ds v/;kiu
dk vuqHko]

vFkok

1⁄431⁄2 ljdkj ls ekU;rk
izkIr fdlh Hkh laLFkk ls

nks o"kZ ds ikB~;dze
ds i'pkr fn;k tkus okyk

flykbZ dk fMIyksekA

gkbZLdwy1⁄4d{kk 9&101⁄2
1⁄4d1⁄2
1⁄411⁄2
bUVjehfM,V lh0Vh0 1⁄4bUVjehfM,V esa flykbZ

ds fy,

 jfgr
vFkok
lh0Vh0 esas flykbZ esa fo'ks"k ;ksX;rk1⁄2

1⁄4[k1⁄2 gkbZLdwy RkFkk

1⁄411⁄2 izse egkfo|ky;]
o`nkou ls fMIyksek

vFkok

1⁄421⁄2
vk;Z
lekt
Vsyfjax bULVhV~;wV]vk;Z lekt jksM]

y[kuÅ ls fMIyksekA

vFkok

1⁄431⁄2 ljdkj ls ekU;rk
izkIr fdlh Hkh la[;k ls

nks Ok"kZ ds ikB~;dze
ds i'pkr fn;k tkus okyk

flykbZ dk fMIyksek

fVIi.kh& 1⁄4[k1⁄2 ds vUrxZr ;ksX;rk;sa j[kus
okys v/;kidksa dk LFkk;h fu;qfDr ls iwoZ f'k{kk
funs'kd }kjk lapkfyr vFkok Lohd`r v/;kiu
foKku lEcU/kh izf'k{k.k lkekU;r% iw.kZ djuk
pkfg,A
lqik=ksa dks bl v/;kiu foKku
lEcU/kh izf'k{k.k ls NwV nh tk ldrh gSA^^+

English version

44.Tailoring teacher for intermediate
(a)
Intermediate with tailoring
C.T., specialisation

(class 11-12) in tailoring

(b) Intermediate and

(1) Diploma from Prem
Vidyalaya,

Vrindavan

or

(2) Diploma from Arya
Samaj
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Tailoring
Institute,
Lucknow, and 3 years

teaching experience of the
subject in High

School Classes.

Or

(3)
Tailoring
Diploma
awarded by any Govt.

recognised
institution
after two years course.

For High School

(a)(1) Intermediate
C.T.(Intermediate with tailoring

 (class9-10)

or
specialisation
in
tailoring in C.T.)

(b) High School and

(1) Diploma from Prem
Mahavidyalay, Vrindavan

or

(2) Diploma from Arya
Samaj Tailoring Institute

Arya
Samaj
Road,
Lucknow

or

(3) Diploma of Tailoring
awarded by any

Govt.recognised
institution awarded after two years course.

Note-
Teacher
possessing
qualification
under clause (b) should normally complete training
relating to pedagogical science run or approved by
Director of Education Suitable candidates can be
exempted form training relating to pedagogical science."

5. All the petitioners have applied for
Teacher in Silai subject for High School
(Class 9 -10). The sole controversy
involved in the present writ petitions is :-

"Whether for appointment as
teacher (Silai subject) for High School
(Class 9 - 10), a candidate should possess
qualification as provide in the aforequoted
Clause (a) OR Clause (b) OR both ?"

Submissions

6. Learned counsels for the
petitioners submit that the qualification
as
provided
in
Clause
(a)
is
Intermediate C.T. (Intermediate with
tailoring or specialisation in tailoring in
C.T.). The qualification provided in
Clause (b) is High School and diploma
from certain institute in Silai. The
qualification provided in Clause (a) is
higher qualification. Those who are
merely High School have also been
made eligible in Clause (b) provided
they have diploma in Silai. Therefore, a
candidate
is
required
to
possess
qualification either in Clause (a) or in
Clause (b).

7. Sri Khare has specifically
referred to paragraph 23 of the writ
petition and submits that in earlier
selection
the
candidate
possessing
Intermediate Certificate with tailoring
craft have been granted appointment
pursuant to Advertisement issued by the
selection board in the year 2003 and
2006 which has not been disputed by
the selection board in its counter
affidavit.

8. Learned counsels for the selection
board and the learned standing counsel
jointly submit that the qualifications as
provide in Clause (a) and in Clause (b) both
are to be possessed by a candidate so as to
be eligible for the post of Teacher in Silai
subject for teaching in High School (Class
9 -10).

Discussion and Findings

9. I have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsels for the
parties.

10. The qualification provided in
Clause
(a)
is
Intermediate
C.T.
(Intermediate
with
tailoring
or
specialisation in tailoring in C.T.) which
is admittedly possessed by all the
petitioners. The persons having passed
Intermediate must have passed High
School. The qualification provided in
3-5 All. Hari Shanker Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1009
Clause (b) is High School which does not
specify any subject or specialisation.
Therefore, for those persons who are
High School, an additional qualification
for diploma in Silai from specified
institute has been provided so as to make
them eligible to apply for the post. Thus,
qualification mentioned in clause (b) is in
alternative
to
the
qualification
mentioned in clause (a). The note
appended to the item no.44 is merely
with respect to the persons falling under
Clause (b). It has nothing to do with
Clause (a). Thus, a candidate so as to be
eligible for the post in question must
possess the qualification as provided in
Clause (a) or in Clause (b) of item no.44
of Appendix "A" in Chapter II of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
But word "or" is missing between
clauses (a) and (b).

Casus Omissus

11. Casus Omisus is a matter which
should have been, but has not been
provided for in a statute, can not be
supplied by courts subject to few
exceptions, as to do so will be legislation
and not construction. Casus Omisus can
not be supplied by the courts except in
case of clear necessity and when reason
for it is found in the four corners of the
statute itself but at the same time Casus
Omisus should not be readily inferred.

12. In Reema Aggrawal vs Anupam
(2004) 3 SCC 199 (para25) Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:-

"25. In Seaford Court Estates
Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All ER 155 (CA),
Lord
Denning
advised
a
purposive
approach to the interpretation of a word
used in a statute and observed:(All ER
p.164 E-H)

"The English language is not an
instrument of mathematical precision. Our
literature would be much the poorer if it
were. This is where the draftsmen of Acts of
Parliament have often been unfairly
criticised. A Judge, believing himself to be
fettered by the supposed rule that he must
look to the language and nothing else,
laments that the draftsmen have not
provided for this or that, or have been
guilty of some or other ambiguity. It would
certainly save the Judges trouble if Acts of
Parliament were drafted with divine
prescience and perfect clarity. In the
absence of it, when a defect appears, a
Judge cannot simply fold his hands and
blame the draftsman. He must set to work
on the constructive task of finding the
intention of Parliament, and he must do
this not only from the language of the
statute, but also from a consideration of the
social conditions which gave rise to it and
of the mischief which it was passed to
remedy, and then he must supplement the
written word so as to give 'force and life' to
the intention of the legislature......A Judge
should ask himself the question how, if the
makers of the Act had themselves come
across this ruck in this texture of it, they
would have straightened it out? He must
then do so as they would have doe. A
Judge must not alter the material of which
the Act is woven, but he can and should
iron out the creases."

 (Emphasis supplied)

13. In Padma Sundara Rao Vs State of
Tamil Nadu (2002) 3 SCC 533 (Para 15)
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
principles of construction and held as
under:-
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"15.Two
principles
of
construction - one relating to casus
omissus and the other in regard to reading
the statute as a whole - appear to be well
settled. Under the first principle a casus
omissus cannot be supplied by the Court
except in the case of clear necessity and
when reason for it is found in the four
corners of the statute itself but at the same
time a casus omissus should not be readily
inferred and for that purpose all the parts
of a statute or section must be construed
together and every clause of a section
should be construed with reference to the
context and other clauses thereof so that
the construction to be put on a particular
provision makes a consistent enactment of
the whole statute. This would be more so if
literal construction of a particular clause
leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous
results which could not have been intended
by the Legislature. "An intention to produce
an unreasonable result", said Danckwerts,
L.J., in Artemiou v. Procopiou (1966 1 QB
878), (at All ER pp.544 -I), "is not to be
imputed to a statute if there is some other
construction available". Where to apply
words literally would "defeat the obvious
intention of the legislation and produce a
wholly unreasonable result" we must "do
some violence to the words" and so
achieve
that
obvious
intention
and
produce a rational construction. [Per Lord
Reid in Luke v. I.R.C. (1963 AC 557) where
at AC p. 577 he also observed: (at All ER
p.664 -I) "This is not a new problem,
though our standard of drafting is such that
it rarely emerges".]

 (Emphasis supplied)

14. Thus, it is not allowable to read
words in a statute which are not there,
but where alternative lies between either
supplying by implication words which
appear
to
have
been
accidentally
omitted, or adopting a construction
which deprives certain existing words of
all meaning, it is permissible to supply
the words. Referring to Craies Statute Law
(7th edition page 109) Hon'ble Supreme
Court so observed in Surjit Singh Karla
Vs. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 87
(Para19) :-

"19. True it is not permissible to
read words in a statute which are not there,
but "where the alternative lies between
either supplying by implication words
which appear to have been accidentally
omitted, or adopting a construction which
deprives certain existing words of all
meanings, it is permissible to supply the
words"( Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, P.
109). Similar are observations in Hameedia
Hardware Stores V. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar,
[1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25 where it was
observed that the court construing a
provision should not easily read into it
words which have not been expressly
enacted but having regard to the context in
which a provision appears and, the object
of the statute in which the said provision is
enacted, the court should construe it in a
harmonious way to make it meaningful. An
attempt must always be made so to
reconcile the relevant provisions as to
advance the remedy intended by the statute.
[See: Sirajul Haq Khan v. Sunni Central
Board of Waqf,(1959) SCR 1287,1299].

15. In Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam
Ltd. Vs. Essar Power Ltd (2008) 4 SCC
755 ( paras 53-56) Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to Maxwell and observed as
under:-

"53.
In
the
chapter
on
`Exceptional Construction' in his book on
`Interpretation of Statutes' Maxwell writes :
3-5 All. Hari Shanker Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1011

"WHERE the language of a
statute, in its ordinary meaning and
grammatical construction, leads to a
manifest contradiction of the apparent
purpose of the enactment, or to some
inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or
injustice, presumably not intended, a
construction may be put upon it which
modifies the meaning of the words, and
even the structure of the sentence. This may
be done by departing from the rules of
grammar, by giving an unusual meaning to
particular
words,
by
altering
their
collocation, by rejecting them altogether, or
by interpolating other words, under the
influence, no doubt, of an irresistible
conviction that the legislature could not
possibly have intended what the words
signify, and that the modifications thus
made are mere corrections of careless
language
and
really
give
the
true
meaning."

54. Thus, Surjit Singh Kalra vs.
Union of India (1991)2 SCC 87, this Court
has observed that sometimes courts can
supply
words
which
have
been
accidentally omitted.

55. In G.P. Singh's `Principles of
Statutory Interpretation' 9th Edn., 2004 at
pp. 71-74 several decisions of this Court
and foreign Courts have been referred to
where the Court has added words to a
statute (though cautioning that normally
this should not be done).

56.Hence we have to add the
aforementioned words at the end of
Section 175 otherwise there will be an
irreconciliable conflict between Section
174 and Section 175.

 (Emphasis supplied)

16. In Hameedia Hardware Stores
Vs. B. Mohan Lal Sowear(1988) 2 SCC
513 (Para 11,12) Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:-

"11. In Seaford Court Estates Ltd.
v. Asher, (1949) 2 All ER 155, 164. Lord
Denning L.J. said:

"When a defect appears, a judge
cannot simply fold his hands and blame the
draftsman. He must set to work on the
constructive task of finding the intention of
Parliament
.....
and
then
he
must
supplement the written word so as to give
'force and life' to the intention of the
legislature ..... A judge should ask himself
the question how, if the makers of the Act
had themselves come across this ruck in the
texture of it, they should have straightened
it out? He must then do as they would have
done. A judge must not alter the material of
which the Act is woven but he can and
should iron out the creases."

12. This rule of construction is
quoted with approval by this Court in M.
Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa, (1961)
2 SCR 295, 314 and it is also referred to by
Beg, C.J. in Bangalore Water-Supply &
Sewerage Board, etc. v. R. Rajappa (1978)
3 SCR 207. In the present case by insisting
on the proof of the bona fides of the
requirement of the landlord, the Court is
not doing any violence to the statute nor
embarking upon any legislative action. The
Court is only construing the words of the
statute in a reasonable way having regard
to the context."

Conclusion

17. It appears that the word "or"
between Clause (a) and Clause (b) has been
some how missed. It is an apparent drafting
error or accidental omission of the word
"or". In various other entries preceding the
item No.44, the word "OR" between Clause
(a) and (b) has been used. For example,
item Nos.37, 38, 39 and 41 providing for
essential qualification for High School
teacher in subjects - (37) spinning and
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
weaving teacher, (38) wood craft teacher,
(39) Book Craft teacher and (41) Metal
Craft teacher, the word "OR" has been used
between the qualification provided in Clauses
(a) and (b). As discussed in para 10 above, a
candidate to be eligible for the post of Trained
Graduate Teacher (Silai) must posses the
minimum qualification as provided in Clause
(a) or Clause (b) of item No.44. If the word
"and" is read between these two Clauses, then
the qualifications mentioned in these two
Clauses would not only lead to irreconcilable
conflict but would also result in absurdity and
manifest contradiction and shall defeat the
apparent purpose of the enactment for
recruitment on the post of teacher. Since
between Clauses (a) and (b) of item No.44, the
word "OR" does not exist, therefore, there is
clear necessity to supply casus omissus to iron
out creases so as to give force and life to the
intention of the legislature to entries (a) and (b)
of item No.44.

18. Thus, the question framed above is
answered that a candidate who posses either
the qualification provided in Clause (a) or
the qualification provided in Clause (b) of
item No.44 in Appendix "A" under Chapter
II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921 shall be eligible for the post of Trained
Graduate Teacher in Silai subject for High
School (Class 9 -10).

19. For all the reasons aforestated, the
impugned orders passed by the Secretary U.P.
Secondary
Education
Selection
Board,
Allahabad, dated 31.10.2018 are hereby
quashed. The aforesaid selection board is
directed to declare the results within a month
and proceed further in accordance with law.

20. All the Writ Petitions are allowed to
the extent indicated above.

21. It is made clear that if any of the
petitioners do not possess requisite qualification
as provided either in Clause (a) or in Clause (b)
of item No. 44, Appendix 'A' under Chapter II
of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
then they shall not be considered for
appointment.
----------

(2020)03-05ILR A1012
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Writ-A No. 46483 of 2016

Annu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jyotir Bhushan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Appointment - denial of appointment
of petitioner on the post of daily wager
sweeper
as
per
the
Circular
dated
01.11.1999 is against the principles of
natural justice and is violation of Article
14, 16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution -
reasonable opportunity of hearing must be
given

Writ Petition disposed of. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmad, J.)

1. This writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India has been filed
by the petitioner with the following
prayer:-