# Jagdish Narain v. Subhash Chandra Gupta & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1423 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-30 - **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdish-narain-v-subhash-chandra-gupta-anr-43766 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 5 All. Jagdish Narain Vs Subhash Chandra Gupta & Anr. 1423 taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected." 27. Before taking the said view, the District Magistrate ought to have taken a legal opinion. The officials / functionaries of the State are assisted by a battery of lawyers of the State. If they have any doubt regarding application of law or the judgement of the High Court/ Courts, they ought to take legal opinion. Their casual approach to the law laid down by the highest Court of the State cannot be countenanced. 28. As a sequel to the above, I find that the impugned communication and order dated 26.02.2016 and 01.03.2016 need to be quashed. Accordingly, they are quashed. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate to decide afresh in the light of the judgement in Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) expeditiously, but not later than three months from the date of communication of this order. He shall pay regard to the fact that in the matter of compassionate appointment, there should not be any loss of time. 29. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. 30. No order as to costs. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J. Writ A No.- 26279 Of 2016 Jagdish Narain ...Petitioner Versus Subhash Chandra Gupta & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioner: Suresh Chandra Verma, Devesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C. RENT CONTROL - Amendment of Written Statement - Ex parte Decree - Affidavit - Scope of Interference under Article 226 1424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Amendment application - Subsequent facts Where tenant seeks to bring on record a subsequent event, namely an ex parte injunction/decree passed in a separate suit, such fact can be pleaded by way of an affidavit and does not necessarily require amendment of the written statement. Evidence - Affidavit - Subsequent facts which are admitted in evidence through affidavit can be considered by the Prescribed Authority while deciding the release application after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite party. Ex parte decree - Remedy - Availability of opportunity to place subsequent facts on record by affidavit disentitles the petitioner from seeking interference merely on the ground of rejection of amendment application. Writ jurisdiction - Limited interference - No illegality or jurisdictional error being shown in the impugned order, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted. Writ petition dismissed. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.) 1. The order passed in amendment application 240-A1 is under challenge. 2. By means of the said amendment application, it is pleaded by the tenant that an exparte injunction has been granted in his favour on 09.03.2011 in an Original Suit No. 257 of 2010 which was filed on 01.12.2010. A perusal of the plaint of Original Suit No.257 of 10 indicates that it is alleged by the tenant therein that the cause of action for filing the injunction suit arose on 27.11.2010 when the landlord removed the wall of store adjacent to the shop in question. 3. The release application has been filed with the categorical assertion that the petitioner is tenant of one shop, boundaries of which has been given at the foot of the plaint. Submission of the petitioner is that the boundaries have been amended later on i.e. by order dated 20.12.2011. However, the amendment application filed by the landlord and the objection of the petitioner are not on record. It is admitted to the petitioner that no affidavit in rebuttal has been filed by the petitioner thereafter. 4. Moreover, it is an exparte decree passed on 02.03.2016. It is open for the petitioner to bring these facts by means of the an affidavit which is accepted in evidence. No amendment of the written statement is required to plead this fact. 5. The Prescribed Authority shall consider the plea taken by the petitioner in the affidavit, if filed before it and after giving due opportunity to the respondents shall take an appropriate decision on the issue raised by the tenant in accordance with law. 5 All. Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1425 6. In view of the above, no interference is required in the order impugned. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J. Writ A No.- 35583 Of 2015 Virendra Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioner: C.P. Gupta Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., K.N.Shukla, Ramendra Asthana. Service Law - Promotion - Group 'D' to Group 'C' (Junior Clerk) - Applicability of Service Rules - Conflict between Special Rules and Later General Rules - Overriding Effect - Merit v. Seniority - Rules of 1983 and Rules of 2001 - Non obstante Clause - Writ Petition Dismissed The petitioner, a Group 'D' employee in the Directorate of Education, sought quashing of the notification directing promotion to Group 'C' posts of Junior Clerk/Routine Clerk through written examination, typing test and interview, contending that promotion ought to be made on the basis of "seniority subject to rejection of the unfit" in terms of Rule 17 of the U.P. Directorate of Education Ministerial Service Rules, 1983. Held that the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group 'C' Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001, framed later in point of time, contain an overriding provision under Rule 3 and prescribe promotion from Group 'D' to Group 'C' on the basis of merit through written examination, interview and evaluation of service record. The said Rules are applicable to all subordinate offices under the control of the State Government except those specifically excluded under Rule 2. Further held that though the Rules of 1983 constitute special rules governing ministerial staff of the Directorate of Education and provide promotion on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit, there exists a clear inconsistency between the two sets of rules in respect of the criterion for promotion. In view of the overriding clause and later enactment, the Rules of 2001 prevail to the limited extent of promotion from Group 'D' to Group 'C'. The principle of generalia specialibus non derogant is not absolute. A later general law will override an earlier special law where there is express overriding provision or irreconcilable inconsistency. The Rules of 2001 evince a clear intention of the rule-making authority to introduce merit-based promotion in public interest to enhance administrative efficiency.