# Jai Bhagwan Singh v. D.I.O.S., Gautam Budh Nagar and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 844
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-04-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.68636 of 2005
- **Bench:** Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-bhagwan-singh-v-d-i-o-s-gautam-budh-nagar-and-others-40665
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chepter-III
Reg.
2-Section
16-GPromotion on class III post-Single Post
of Clerck-recognised aided Intermediate
College-whether such post can be filled
by way of promotion from class 4th
employees? Whether law laid down
reported in 1999 UPLBEC (III) 2315,
Palak
Dhari
Yadav
case
has
been
correctly decided?-On reference made by
Single Judge-D.B. onsward alternative
regarding filling the Single post by way
of promotion-but further held-the law
decided in Palak Dhari Case is not good
law.

Held: Para 12,16 & 18

Thus
a
bare
reading
of
note
of
Regulation 2 (2) of the Regulations
makes it clear that if there is only one
sanctioned post, the same is to be filled
up through the channel of promotion
since 50% of one shall be half and half
or more than half is to be deemed as
one,
as
per
the
legal
fiction
contemplated in the note.

Thus, we are of the view that in the
judgment of Palak Dhari Yadav's case,
reliance on the Post Graduate Institution
of Medical Education and Research,
Chandigarh (supra), was not a correct
reliance and the said reliance is clearly
misplaced. In Palak Dhari Yadav's case,
the learned Single Judge has incorrectly
taken the view that the rule making
authority while enacting Regulation 2
(2) read with Note did not visualise
reservation
of
only
one
post
for
promotion.

A single post of Class-III available in an
Intermediate College governed by the
2 All] Jai Bhagwan Singh V. D.I.O.S., Gautam Budh Nagar and others
845
1921 Act can be filled by way of
promotion.
Case law discussed:
1999 (3) UPLBEC-2315-not correctly decided
AIR 1998 SC-1767
1999 SCC-(L&S) 513
J.T. 2081 SC-47
1976 (2) SCC-905
1995 (2) SCC-745

## Text

844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
tenant could not be permitted to say that
Kashi Ram alone was not the landlord.
However the observation of the revisional
court in the earlier judgment that
allegation of the tenant amounted to
denial of title does not operate as
resjudicata.

10. Accordingly, judgment and
order passed by the revisional court being
erroneous in law is set aside and judgment
and decree passed by the trial court is
approved
even
though
on different
grounds. Writ petition is allowed.

11. I have held in Khursheed Vs.
A.D.J.2004 (2) A.R.C. 64 that while
granting relief to the tenant against
eviction in respect of building covered by
Rent control act writ court is empowered
to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.
The property in dispute is a shop situate in
Muzzaffar Nagar which is adjacent to
Delhi. Rate of rent of Rs.65/- per month is
highly inadequate. It is virtually no rent.
Accordingly, it is directed that with effect
from November, 2005 tenant-petitioner
shall pay rent to the landlord-respondent
at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJOY NATH RAY, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.68636 of 2005

Jai Bhagwan Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
District Inspector of Schools, Gautambudh
Nagar and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Goel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.P. Singh Raghav
Sri Ran Vijay Singh
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Chepter-III
Reg.
2-Section
16-GPromotion on class III post-Single Post
of Clerck-recognised aided Intermediate
College-whether such post can be filled
by way of promotion from class 4th
employees? Whether law laid down
reported in 1999 UPLBEC (III) 2315,
Palak
Dhari
Yadav
case
has
been
correctly decided?-On reference made by
Single Judge-D.B. onsward alternative
regarding filling the Single post by way
of promotion-but further held-the law
decided in Palak Dhari Case is not good
law.

Held: Para 12,16 & 18

Thus
a
bare
reading
of
note
of
Regulation 2 (2) of the Regulations
makes it clear that if there is only one
sanctioned post, the same is to be filled
up through the channel of promotion
since 50% of one shall be half and half
or more than half is to be deemed as
one,
as
per
the
legal
fiction
contemplated in the note.

Thus, we are of the view that in the
judgment of Palak Dhari Yadav's case,
reliance on the Post Graduate Institution
of Medical Education and Research,
Chandigarh (supra), was not a correct
reliance and the said reliance is clearly
misplaced. In Palak Dhari Yadav's case,
the learned Single Judge has incorrectly
taken the view that the rule making
authority while enacting Regulation 2
(2) read with Note did not visualise
reservation
of
only
one
post
for
promotion.

A single post of Class-III available in an
Intermediate College governed by the
2 All] Jai Bhagwan Singh V. D.I.O.S., Gautam Budh Nagar and others
845
1921 Act can be filled by way of
promotion.
Case law discussed:
1999 (3) UPLBEC-2315-not correctly decided
AIR 1998 SC-1767
1999 SCC-(L&S) 513
J.T. 2081 SC-47
1976 (2) SCC-905
1995 (2) SCC-745

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.)

1. Heard Sri V.K. Goel, learned
counsel appearing for the writ petitioner,
Sri A.P.S. Raghav, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.3 and Sri Ran
Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel.

2. In the writ petition, by order dated
28.10.2005, the learned Single Judge has
referred
the
following
question
for
consideration by a larger Bench:-

"Whether a single post of class III
available in an Intermediate College
governed by the 1921 Act can be filled by
way of promotion and whether the case of
Palak Dhari Yadav reported in 1999 Vol.
3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 2315 has been correctly
decided keeping in view the opinion
expressed by another Single Judge in writ
petition No.4165 of 2004 as also the
pronouncement of the Apex Court in the
case of B. Badami Vs. State of Mysore
and All India Federation Vs. Union of
India?"

3. The brief facts necessary for
appreciating the question referred by the
learned Single Judge be noted.

4. The writ petitioner has been
working as a Class-IV employee in a
recognised aided Institution governed by
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In
the
Institution,
there
is
only
one
sanctioned post of Clerk, which fell
vacant due to death of its last incumbent,
namely, Ratan Pal Singh on 15.12.1994.
The Committee of Management passed a
resolution in favour of the writ petitioner
promoting him from Class-IV to the post
of Clerk. The District Inspector of
Schools, vide his letter dated 25.2.1995
approved the promotion of the writ
petitioner as Clerk, and the writ petitioner
thereafter started functioning on the post
of Clerk. The father of respondent no.3Ratan Pal Singh abovementioned, who
was working as Clerk in the Institution
died. Thereafter the respondent no.3
claimed
his
appointment
on
compassionate ground on the post of
Clerk; respondent no.3 was appointed as a
Clerk against supernumerary post by the
order of the District Inspector of Schools
dated 7.4.1995. In the year 2004, one
vacancy of Clerk arose at Rajendra Prasad
Intermediate College, Vilaspur, District
Gautam
Budh
Nagar.
The
District
Inspector of Schools passed an order
dated 13.12.2004 directing the adjustment
of respondent no.3 in the aforesaid
Institution. Respondent no.3 could not
join
and
subsequently
the
District
Inspector of Schools, vide his letter dated
9.7.2005 cancelled the attachment of
respondent no.3 as well as the promotion
of the writ petitioner vide his order dated
15.10.2005. The District Inspector of
Schools in his order has taken the view
that since there was only one post of
Clerk in the Institution, the said post
cannot be filled by promotion of the writ
petitioner. The District Inspector of
Schools was of the view that single post
can never be filled by promotion. The said
order was challenged by the writ
petitioner in the writ petition, and after
hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, the learned Single Judge referred
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
the question for our consideration, as
noted above.

5. Chapter-III Regulation-2 of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
has been framed under Section 16-G of
the 1921 Act providing for promotion
from Class-IV to Class-III. Chapter-III
Regulation-2, which is relevant for the
purposes of this case, is quoted below:-

"2.
(1)
For
the
purpose
of
appointments of clerks and Fourth Class
employees the minimum educational
qualification would be the same as has
been fixed from time to time for the
equivalent employees of Government
Higher Secondary Schools.
(2) Fifty per cent of the total number
of sanctioned posts of head clerk and
clerks shall be filled among the serving
clerks and employees through promotion.
If
employee
possesses
prescribed
eligibility and he has served continuously
for 5 years on his substantive post and his
service record is good, then promotion
shall be made on the basis of seniority,
subject to rejection of the unfit.
If any employee is aggrieved by any
decision or order of the management
committee in this respect then he can
make representation against it to the
Inspector within two weeks from the date
of such decision or order. Inspector on
such representation can make such orders
as he thinks fit. Decision of the Inspector
would be final and promptly executed by
the management.
Note.--In calculating fifty per cent of
posts parts less than half would be left and
half or more that half post would be
deemed as one.

6. A learned Single Judge of this
Court in Palak Dhari Yadav Vs.
Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools &
others, reported at 1999 (3) UPLBEC
2315 considered the Regulation 2 (2) of
Chapter-III and took the view that a single
post of Clerk cannot be filled up by
promotion. The learned Single Judge
placed reliance on the judgment of the
apex court, reported at AIR 1998 S.C.
1767: Post Graduate Institution of
Medical
Education
and
Research,
Chandigarh Vs. Faculty Association
and others, and has taken the view that
permitting the filling up of a single post
by promotion is 100% reservation by
promotion, and the ratio laid down by the
apex court in the said judgment is also
applicable with regard to the promotion.
The learned Single Judge also took the
view that the rule making authority while
enacting Regulation 2 (2) did not visualise
reservation
of
only
one
post
for
promotion. It was further held that the
note comes into play only where there is
more than one post. The learned Single
Judge doubted the correctness of the said
decision and has made reference.

7. Sri V.K. Goel, learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioner submitted
that a bare reading of the statutory scheme
as
is
delineated
from
reading
of
Regulation 2 (2) and the note indicates
that if there is only one post, the said post
can be filled by promotion. He submits
that the promotion is a different concept
as compared with the reservation and the
judgment of the apex court, which has
been relied by the learned Single Judge in
Palak Dhari Yadav case (supra) had no
application. He submits that Regulation 2
(2) provides for channel of promotion
from two sources, which channel of
promotion is inviolable and can be only
changed by amendment of the Rules. He
has placed reliance on the judgements of
2 All] Jai Bhagwan Singh V. D.I.O.S., Gautam Budh Nagar and others
847
the apex court, reported at 1999 SCC
(L&S) 513: State of Punjab and others
Vs. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar and another,
JT 2001 (1) S.C. 47: Kuldeep Kumar
Gupta & Ors. Vs. H.P.S.E.B. & Ors
and (1976) 2 SCC 901: V.B. Badami
and others Vs. State of Mysore and
others.

8. Sri A.P.S. Raghav, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has
submitted that promoting a single post of
Clerk is nothing but 100% reservation
denying the rightful claim of other
candidates
to
participate
in
the
recruitment of the post. He submits that in
event a single post is to be filled by
promotion, no chance will be availed by
candidates claiming appointment on the
post. He has placed reliance on the same
judgment of the apex court in Post
Graduate
Institution
of
Medical
Education and Research, Chandigarh
(supra).

9. Learned Standing Counsel has
also reiterated his submission supporting
the view taken by this Court in Palak
Dhari Yadav case (supra). Learned
Standing
Counsel
submits
that
the
applicability of the note will arise only
where there are more than one post. He
submits that a single post of Clerk can
never be filled by promotion.

We have considered the submissions
and perused the records.

10. For the filling up of a post by
promotion, it is for the rule making
authority to provide for the manner and
procedure. Regulations have been framed
providing for procedure and manner for
making appointment on various Class-III
and Class-IV posts. The rule making
authority has provided that 50% post of
the clerical cadre including the post of
head clerk shall be filled by promotion
from the serving Class-IV employees. The
promotion is a right given by the rule
making authority to the existing Class-IV
employees of an Institution. For knowing
the exact scheme and the percentage of
the promotion on the posts, which are to
be filled up, we have to revert to
Regulation 2 (2). A plain reading of the
Regulation 2 (2) especially the Note
makes it clear that in calculating fifty per
cent of posts parts less than half would be
left and half or more than half would be
deemed
as
one.
Thus
the
Note
contemplates that half or more than half
post would be deemed as one. The note is
a part of Regulation 2 and provides for
filling up 50% post of total number of
sanctioned
posts
through
promotion.
Thus, if only half falls in promotion
quota, the same will be filled up by
promotion.

11. Before proceeding any further,
the submission of the learned Standing
Counsel that note will come into play
only where there are more than one post,
needs to be considered. In an Education
Institution receiving the aid from the
State, the posts are created by the Director
of Education exercising powers under
Section 9 of the Act 24 of 1971. There are
no such rules that there has to be more
than one posts of Clerk in every
institution; there are large number of
Institutions, where only one post of Clerk
is sanctioned, as in the present case.
Section 13 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh
General Clauses Act, 1904 provides that
words in the singular shall include the
plural, and vice versa. Section 13 of the
Act is quoted below:-
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
"13. Gender and number.--In all
[Uttar Pradesh] Acts, unless there is
anything repugnant in the subject or
context,--

(1) words importing the masculine
gender shall be taken to include females;
and
(2) words in the singular shall
include the plural, and vice versa."

12. Thus a bare reading of note of
Regulation 2 (2) of the Regulations makes
it clear that if there is only one sanctioned
post, the same is to be filled up through
the channel of promotion since 50% of
one shall be half and half or more than
half is to be deemed as one, as per the
legal fiction contemplated in the note.

13. The learned Single Judge in
Palak Dhari Yadav (supra) has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the apex
court in the case of Post Graduate
Institution of Medical Education and
Research, Chandigarh (supra). The apex
court in Post Graduate Institution of
Medical
Education
and
Research,
Chandigarh (supra) was considering the
question of applicability of reservation for
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes categories
for filling the posts. The concept of
reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes referable to Article 16 (4) of the
Constitution is a different concept as
compared to the right of promotion,
which is a right given to existing
employees.
The
reservation,
as
contemplated under Article 16 (4), is a
different concept with entire different
object. The judgment relied upon by the
learned Single Judge in Palak Dhari
Yadav (supra) was not a case dealing
with the promotion or right of serving
employees.

14. The Apex Court in State of
Punjab and others (supra) had occasion
to consider almost similar controversy.
The Punjab Medical College Education
Service (Class-I) Rules, 1978 provided for
method
of
appointment,
75%
by
promotion and 25% by direct recruitment.
The question arose in that context. The
submission raised before the apex court
that in view of the observations made in
R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab,
reported at (1995) 2 SCC 745, the
determination as to whether the vacancy
will go to the promote or direct
recruitment
will
be
decided.
The
submission was made before the apex
court
that
the
judgment
of
R.K.
Sabharwal's case (supra), which was
dealing with the reservation to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and
Other Backward Classes under Article 16
(4), has nothing to do, while interpreting
the Rules pertaining to the quota fixed for
only by promotion or direct recruitment,
this submission was accepted by the apex
court. In the aforesaid judgment, the apex
court had also occasion to consider the
Post Graduate Institution of Medical
Education and Research, Chandigarh
(supra) and held that the judgment of Post
Graduate
Institution
of
Medical
Education and Research, Chandigarh
(supra)
had
no
applicability,
while
considering the quota for promotion and
direct
recruitment.
Following
was
observed by the apex court in paragraph
12:-

"12.
Before
parting
with
the
discussion,
we
may
mention
one
submission placed for our consideration
by learned counsel for the respondent.
2 All] Jai Bhagwan Singh V. D.I.O.S., Gautam Budh Nagar and others
849
Placing reliance on a latter Constitution
Bench judgment in Postgraduate Institute
of Medical Education & Research Vs.
Faculty Assn. it was contended that this
Court in the light of R.K. Sabharwal case
held that where there was only one post in
a cadre, there could not be any reservation
under Article 16 (4) for S.Cs, STs and
BCs. Similarly, if there is one post of
Professor, Rule 19 may not apply. In this
connection, paras 34 and 35 of the Report
at p.23 were pressed into service. Ray, J.,
speaking for the Constitution Bench,
stated in the said paragraphs as under:
(SCC p.23, paras 34-35)
"34.
In
a
single
post
cadre,
reservation at any point of time on
account of rotation of roster is bound to
bring about a situation where such a
single post in the cadre will be kept
reserved exclusively for the members of
the backward classes and in total
exclusion of the general members of the
public. Such total exclusion of general
members of the public and cent per cent
reservation for the backward classes is not
permissible
within
the
constitutional
framework. The decisions of this Court to
this effect over the decades have been
consistent.
35. Hence, until there is plurality of
posts in a cadre, the question of
reservation will not arise because any
attempt of reservation by whatever means
and even with the device of rotation of
roster in a single post cadre is bound to
create 100% reservation of such post
whenever such reservation is to be
implemented. The device of rotation of
roster in respect of single post cadre will
only mean that on some occasions there
will be complete reservation and the
appointment to such post is kept out of
bounds to the members of a large segment
of the community who do not belong to
any reserved class, but on some other
occasions the post will be available for
open competition when in fact on all such
occasions, a single post cadre should have
been filled only by open competition
amongst all segments of the society."

It is difficult to appreciate how this
decision can be of any assistance to
learned counsel for the respondent. It is
obvious that in the aforesaid case, the
Constitution Bench was concerned with a
similar scheme of reservation for S.C., ST
and BC candidates and, therefore, Article
16(4) squarely arose for consideration. To
that extent, the said decision falls in line
with the legal position examined by the
earlier
Constitution
Bench
in
R.K.
Sabharwal case. As we have already
opined earlier, the factual and legal
situation in the present case is entirely
different. We are not concerned with any
scheme of reservation under Article 16
(4). Therefore, R.K. Sabharwal case
cannot be pressed into service, as seen
earlier. If that is so, on the same lines the
ratio of the decision of this Court in the
Postgraduate
Institute
of
Medical
Education & Research case would also
not apply. While deciding the question of
working out the Recruitment Rule for
appointment
from
two
sources
of
promotees and direct recruits wherein
only Article 16 (1) would hold the field,
uninhibited by the exceptional category
carved out from the said sub-article (1) by
sub-article (4) thereof. The first point for
determination is, therefore, answered in
favour of the appellants and against the
respondent."

15. The above judgment of the apex
court clearly laid down that while
interpreting
the
Rules
regarding
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
promotion concept, the reservation has no
application.

16. Thus, we are of the view that in
the judgment of Palak Dhari Yadav's
case, reliance on the Post Graduate
Institution of Medical Education and
Research, Chandigarh (supra), was not a
correct reliance and the said reliance is
clearly
misplaced.
In
Palak
Dhari
Yadav's case, the learned Single Judge
has incorrectly taken the view that the
rule making authority while enacting
Regulation 2 (2) read with Note did not
visualise reservation of only one post for
promotion.

17. Another judgment relied upon
by the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner in Kuldeep Kumar Gupta's case
(supra) also supports his submission that
providing a quota for promotional cadre
does not tantamount to reservation.
Following observations were made in
paragraph 7:-

"7. So far as the second question is
concerned, we are unable to persuade
ourselves to agree with the submission of
Mr. Subramanium that providing a quota
tantamounts to reservation. Article 16
deals with equality of opportunity in
matters of public employment and Article
16 (4) enables the State from making any
provision for reservation of appointments
or posts in favour of any backward class
of citizens which in the opinion of the
State is not adequately represented in the
services under the State. This Court in
Indira Sawhney's case has held that no
such reservation is permissible in the
promotional posts and to get over the said
decision, Article 16 (4A) has been
inserted by the Constitution (Seventy
Seventh Amendment) Act. But we fail to
understand as to how providing a quota
for a specified category of personnel in
the promotional post can be held to be a
reservation within the ambit of Article 16
(4). Providing a quota is not new in the
service jurisprudence and whenever the
feeder category itself consists of different
category of persons and when they are
considered
for
any
promotion,
the
employer fixes a quota for each category
so that the promotional cadre would be
equi-balanced and at the same time each
category of persons in feeder category
would get the opportunity of being
considered for promotion. This is also in a
sense in the larger interest of the
administration when it is the employer,
who is best suited to decide the
percentage of posts in the promotional
cadre, which can be earmarked for
different category of persons. In other
words, this provision actually effectuates
the constitutional mandate engrafted in
Article 16 (1), as it would offer equality
of opportunity in the matters relating to
employment and it would not be the
monopoly of a specified category of
persons in the feeder category to get
promotions. We, therefore, do not find
any infraction of the Constitutional
provision engrafted in Article 16 (4) while
providing a quota in promotional cadre, as
in our view it does not tantamount to
reservation."

18. In view of the foregoing
discussions, we answer the reference in
the following words;

(i) A single post of Class-III
available in an Intermediate College
governed by the 1921 Act can be filled by
way of promotion; and,
2 All] No.871181334 Ex.Ct. S.G. Singh V. I.G. of Police C.S.,CRPF, Lucknow & another
851
The case of Palak Dhari Yadav
(supra) has not been correctly decided.

19. Let our opinion be placed before
the learned Single Judge for deciding the
writ petition.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S.C CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 30768 of 1999

No. 87181335 Ex Ct. Sheo Govind Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Inspector General of Police CS, CRPF,
Lucknow and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Pandey
Sri S.K. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.K Chatterji

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
Law-Cancellation
of
appointmentPetitioner was appointed as constable in
C.R.P.F.-at the time of filling application
form-furnished
incorrect
particularsabout involvement any criminal casesappointing
authority
noticed
the
evolvement
in
criminal
case
under
Section
279,
337,506
I.P.C.-during
verification of character-challenged on
the ground the offence do not constitute
moral turpitude held-suppressing the
material
information
about
the
involvement in Criminal Case-itself moral
turpitude
consequence
of
criminal
proceeding about acquittal on technical
ground-not material.

Held: Para 27,30,31

Thus, in view of the above, the matter
requires to be examined in the facts and
circumstances of the case. In the instant
case,
as
suppressing
the
material
information by the petitioner of his
involvement in criminal case itself is a
moral turpitude, it is of no consequence
as to whether the offence, he was tried
involved moral turpitude or not.

Thus, it is the antecedent, conduct or
character
of
the
candidate
to
be
appointed to the services which is of
paramount consideration, not of the
result of the criminal case in which he
has been involved, as acquittal may be
on a technical ground or for want of
evidence etc.

In view of the above, the petitioner has
obtained
the
employment
by
misrepresentation, i.e., suppressing the
material
information
sought
by the
appointing authority. The information
was required to verify his character and
antecedents. Thus, neither the result of
the prosecution nor the nature of the
offence, in which he had been involved,
has any bearing on the case. Principles
of natural justice are not attracted in
such as fact situation.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1964 SC-853, AIR 1956 All. E.R.-349, AIR
1994 SC-853, 1956 AER-349, AIR 1994 SC2151, 1994 (2) SCC-481, 2000 (3) SCC-581,
1995 (4) Supp. SCC-100, 1990 (3) SCC-655,
AIR 1964 SC-72, 2003 (8) SCC-319, 2004 (6)
SCC-325, AIR 1966 SC-1340, AIR 2000 SC1650, AIR 1965 Alld-382, AIR 1963 Alld.-527,
AIR 1996 SC-3300, 1997 (4) SCC-1, AIR 1959
AU-71, 1966 (55) SCC-605, AIR 2003 SC-179

Constitution
of
India-Art.-226-Writ
Petition
maintainability-writ
petition
against
the
state
officer
without
impleading the state or union as
necessary
party-held-writ
not
maintainable.

Held: Para 13

Thus,
we
reach
the
inescapable
conclusion
that
the
writ
is
not