# Jitendra Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 934
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-29
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 35625 of 2017
- **Bench:** Ashok Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-kumar-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-45829
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Declaration/ attestation form
- disclosure of any pending case is
required at two relevant periods that is,
time of filling of the form and second,
stage of filling up of the form of
attestation.
(Para 37)

Petitioners had applied for the post of
constable (GD) in Railway Protection Force in
March 2011 and at that relevant point of time
no case were pending against the petitioner
and subsequently in year 2011 that the case
against the petitioner was registered which
ultimately resulted in their acquittal in 2014
which is after the submission of attestation
form. Thus, both at the time of applying for
the post of constable as well as at the time of
filling up of the attestation form, no criminal
case was pending against any of the
petitioners. (Para 33, 34)

Writ Petition Partly Allowed. (E-10)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
above, would remain a pure private
contract of service. In that view of the
matter the writ petition challenging the
termination of such a contract would not
be maintainable.

19. The preliminary objection is
thus
upheld
and
the
petition
is
consequently dismissed.
----------
(2020)06ILR A934
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK KUMAR, J.

WRIT A No. 35625 of 2017

Jitendra Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus

Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Tejasvi Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, Sri S.K
Rai, Sri Vijay Kuar Rai

Civil Law - Declaration/ attestation form
- disclosure of any pending case is
required at two relevant periods that is,
time of filling of the form and second,
stage of filling up of the form of
attestation.
(Para 37)

Petitioners had applied for the post of
constable (GD) in Railway Protection Force in
March 2011 and at that relevant point of time
no case were pending against the petitioner
and subsequently in year 2011 that the case
against the petitioner was registered which
ultimately resulted in their acquittal in 2014
which is after the submission of attestation
form. Thus, both at the time of applying for
the post of constable as well as at the time of
filling up of the attestation form, no criminal
case was pending against any of the
petitioners. (Para 33, 34)

Writ Petition Partly Allowed. (E-10)

List of cases cited:-

1. Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others
(2016) 8 SCC 471 (followed)

2. Kalamuddin Ansari and another Vs. Union of
India and 4 others Writ A No. 33265 of 2017

3. Mohd. Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others Civil Appeal No. 10571 of 2018

4. Raj Bahadur Vs. Union of India and others
Writ A No. 39219 of 2017

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vijay
Kumar Rai, Advocate holding the brief of
Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel
representing all the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed by the petitioners assailing the
orders dated 1.3.2017, 20.3.2017 and
27.3.2017 (Annexures 2-B, 3-B, 4-B and
5-B of the writ petition). The petitioners
have prayed for issuance of a mandamus
commanding the respondents to reinstate
the petitioners into service with all
consequential benefits.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are
that
the
petitioners
responded
in
pursuance
of
an
advertisement
(Advertisement No.1/11) which has been
issued
by
the
Chief
Security
Commissioner, Railway Protection Force
(R.P.F.) Gorakhpur, U.P. (respondent
no.3) for recruitment on the post of
Constables (G.D.) in Railway Protection
Special Force. In pursuance of the
6 All. Jitendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 935
aforesaid advertisement the petitioners
applied and they have received admit
cards to appear in various stages of
examination and thereafter they stood
qualified for the aforesaid post of
Constable (G.D.)

4. An attestation form was required
to be submitted by the petitioners in
which there was column 12 which
requires the disclosure of the character of
the petitioners/ candidates and their
antecedents as to whether any criminal
case is pending against the candidates or
had they ever been tried.

5. All the petitioners filled up the
attestation form and they denied as at that
point of time no criminal case was
pending against them. After submission
of the attestation form the petitioners
were sent to their respective training
centres for training. During the course of
training the police verification reports of
the petitioners were sought from the
concerned District Magistrates. In the
police verification report, which has been
obtained by the District Magistrates, it
was disclosed that a criminal case was
lodged against the petitioners and are
concluded, wherein the petitioners were
acquitted. On account of said police
reports, the petitioners were discharged
from the services.

6. The attestation form of the
petitioner
no.1
was
submitted
on
18.6.2014 wherein, it is alleged that the
petitioner no.1 did not disclose his
character and antecedents in column 12 of
the attestation form. Viz. a viz. Case
Crime No. 283 of 2011 under Sections
279, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. (trivial in
nature).
After
submission
of
the
attestation form the petitioner no.1 has
received an allotment letter wherein he
was directed to join his training at ZTC
Chink-Hill on 1.11.2014. Based on the
police verification report disclosing the
prosecution and acquaintance from the
Court of law the petitioner no.1 was
discharged
amidst
of
training
on
26.3.2015.

7. Against the order dated 26.3.2015
the petitioner no.1 filed a Writ Petition
No. 35948 of 2015 and this Court vide
order dated 21.11.2016 had quashed the
order of discharge dated 26.3.2015 while
remanding the matter back to the
respondents for fresh consideration of the
candidature of the petitioner in the light
of law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India
and others (2016) 8 SCC 471.

8. In pursuance of the order dated
21.11.2016 the petitioner no.1 (Jitendra
Kumar) was called for personal hearing
by the respondent on 12.1.2017 and after
hearing the petitioner, the respondent no.4
has proceeded to cancel the candidature
of the petitioner on the ground of
intentional suppression of material fact at
the time of filing up of attestation form,
vide order dated 20.1.2017.

9. In the case of petitioner no.2
(Rishi Pal Singh) learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the attestation
form has been submitted by the petitioner
no.2 on 23.5.2014 wherein, it is alleged
that the petitioner no.2 did not disclose
his character and antecedents in column
12 of the attestation form. Viz. a viz. a
Case Crime No. 388 dated 17.10.2011
under Section 160 of I.P.C. was lodged. It
is contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioner no.2
Rishi Pal has received an allotment letter
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whereby he was directed to join the
training at R.P.F. T.C./ Mukamghat Patna
(Bihar) on 1.11.2014.

10. In the police verification report
pertaining to the character of
the
petitioner no.2 the District Magistrate,
Jhajjhar, Haryana has sent his report that
the petitioner no.2 was tried and acquitted
from the Court of law under Section 160
I.P.C. Based on the said report the
petitioner no.2 was discharged amidst of
training on 19.6.2015.

11. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the application
form has been submitted by the petitioner
no.2 in March 2011 while case/FIR has
been lodged on 17.10.2011 that is after
filling up of the application form, and the
case of the petitioner no.2 was concluded/
acquitted on 29.11.2013 that is much
prior to filling up of attestation form,
which was admittedly filled by petitioner
no.2
on
23.5.2014.
Therefore,
the
contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that neither any case was
pending at the time of filling up of the
application form nor at the time of filling
up of the attestation form, as such the
petitioner no.2 was under the impression
that no case, on the date of filling up of
the form is pending hence, has denied
regarding pendency of criminal cases
against him.

12. As proceeded by petitioner no.1
by approaching this Court the petitioner
no.2 has also approached this Court and
has challenged the discharge order dated
19.6.2015. The writ petition filed by the
petitioner no.2 was allowed vide order
dated 22.12.2016 and the order of
discharge dated 19.6.2015 was quashed
and the matter was remitted back to the
respondents for fresh consideration of the
candidature of the petitioner no.2 in the
light of the judgment of Apex Court in the
case of Avtar Singh (Supra).

13. In pursuance of the order passed
by this Court dated 29.11.2016 the
petitioner no.2 was called for personal
hearing on 15.3.2017 and after hearing
the petitioner the respondent no.5 vide
order dated 27.3.2017 had proceeded to
cancel the candidature of the petitioner
no.2 on the ground of intentional
suppression of material fact at the time of
filling up of attestation form.

14. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the nature of the
criminal case lodged under Section 160
IPC is very trivial (having only one
month maximum punishment) even then
the respondents not only failed to
appreciate triviality of the offence but
also the relevant factor pertaining to the
case/ registration of the FIR which was
neither lodged at the time of application
form nor at the time of filling up of the
attestation form.

15. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submitted that in fact
the out come of the acquittal order was
not benefit of doubt rather it was a clean
acquittal therefore, the counsel for the
petitioners
submits
that
the
order
impugned passed by the respondent is
wholly illegal, arbitrary and perverse as
the respondent no.5 was supposed to
adjudge the suitability of candidature with
reference to the nature of suppression and
the nature of criminal case.

16. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that almost identical
facts
are
involved
with
regard
to
6 All. Jitendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 937
petitioner
no.3
Manoj
Kumar
and
petitioner no.4 Bhanu Pratap Attri, who
were discharged by the respondent no.3
vide discharge orders dated 20.3.2017 and
1.3.2017 respectively.

17. Learned counsel for the
petitioners therefore submitted that the
respondents not only failed to appreciate
the acquittal of the petitioners but also the
nature of the case registered against them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that in fact the respondents
instead of consideration as to whether the
petitioners were suitable for appointment
to the post of constable, they had acted
mechanically
by
holding
that
the
petitioners unfit for the post of constable
on the basis of alleged incorrect facts
furnished
by
the
petitioners.
The
respondents authorities on the basis of
information
so
furnished
by
the
petitioners found the candidates unfit for
employment in the Railway Protection
Force.

18. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submits that after the
remand order passed by this Court the
respondents granted personal hearing to
the petitioners, wherein the petitioners
placed certain documents however, after
hearing the petitioners the respondents
found that in column 12, the petitioners in
response to the question that whether they
were ever arrested, or not, they had ticked
'No' and secondly, whether the petitioners
were ever prosecuted, they had ticked
'No'. The authority/ respondent further
found that while signing the attestation
form and on oath on non-judicial stamp
paper of Rs.20/- that if the fact that false
information has been furnished or that
there has been suppression of any factual
information in the attestation form comes
to the notice at any time during service,
he will be ready for termination from
service and he will have no right to claim
against the Railway. The respondents
have held that the petitioners have
violated the terms and conditions so are
stipulated in the attestation form.

19. The respondent authority on the
basis of information so furnished by
petitioners found their candidature unfit
for employment in the Government.
However, a brief reference was made to
the Apex Court judgment in case of Avtar
Singh (supra) but no reason was assigned
why the said judgment was not applicable
in the cases of the petitioners.

20. Learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that respondent authority in a
cursory manner rejected the claim of
petitioners solely on the ground that they
had ticked 'No' in Column 12 to two
questions regarding arrest of petitioners
and their prosecution, and the authorities
failed to take note of guidelines as laid
down by Apex Court in case of Avtar
Singh (supra) in para 38.

21. He further submitted that at the
time of filling up of the attestation form
there was no case pending against the
petitioners and further, at the time of
submission of attestation form petitioners
had already been acquitted of criminal
cases, and looking to the trivial nature of
the cases which were tried against
petitioners, non-disclosure would not
amount to terminating the services of
petitioners, which was against the spirit of
judgment in Avtar Singh's case.

22. Sri Misra, also contended that
once this Court had remanded the matter
back to decide the issue in light of Avtar
Singh (supra), the authority was duty
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bound to consider the case of petitioners
within the parameters laid down in said
case in Para 38 but respondents rejected
the claim on vague ground and failed to
consider the case within the parameters of
aforesaid judgment, thus the orders dated
1.3.2017, 20.3.2017 and 27.3.2017 passed
by respondents are against the mandate of
this Courts orders dated 22.11.2016,
18.10.2016 and 22.12.2016.

23. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance of Para 31
of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Avtar Singh (Supra), which reads as
follows :

31. Coming to the question
whether an employee on probation can
be discharged/ refused appointment
though he has been acquitted of the
charge(s), if his case was not pending
when form was filled, in such matters,
employer is bound to consider grounds
of acquittal and various other aspects,
overall conduct of employee including
the
accusations
which
have
been
levelled.
If
on
verification,
the
antecedents are otherwise also not
good, and in number of cases incumbent
is
involved
then
notwithstanding
acquittals in a case/cases, it would be
open to the employer to form opinion as
to fitness on the basis of material on
record. In case offence is petty in nature
and committed at young age, such as
stealing a bread, shouting of slogans or
is such which does not involve moral
turpitude, cheating, misappropriation,
etc. or otherwise not a serious or
heinous offence and accused has been
acquitted
in
such
a
case
when
verification form is filled, employer may
ignore
lapse
of
suppression
or
submitting
false
information
in
appropriate cases on due consideration
of various aspects."

24. Reliance has also been placed on
a judgment passed by this Court in WritA No. 33265 of 2017 (Kalamuddin
Ansari and another vs. Union of India
and 4 others) wherein disclosure were
not made in Column 12 of the case
registered against the candidate, and it
was held that the case fell within the
parameters of principles elucidated in
Para 38 of Avtar Singh's case.

25. In support of his contention
learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance of a recent judgment in
Civil Appeal No. 10571 of 2018 (Mohd.
Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and
others) dated 12th October 2018. The
reliance has been placed on para 8 and 9
of the judgment.

26. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has also placed reliance of a
recent of judgment of this Court in the
case of Raj Bahadur vs. Union of India
and others passed in Writ A No. 39219 of
2017 decided on 13.12.2019.

27. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has drawn the attention of the
Court by placing the orders passed by the
respondents authorities in the cases of
similarly situated persons.

28. In the case of one Surendra
Pratap Yadav, S/o Ram Kuber Yadav,
Village Poora Bahoriya Post Gaddopur,
Post Maharajganj, District Jaunpur, who
has also filed a writ petition against the
order passed by the respondent authority
discharging him from training, a speaking
order dated 12.5.2017 has been passed by
I.G.-cum-CSC/ RPSF, New Delhi, in
6 All. Jitendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 939
pursuance of the direction of this Court.
Against Surendra Pratap Yadav a case
was registered as Police Case No. 205A/2008, under Section 147, 149, 323,
504, 506, 452 and 308 I.P.C. however, no
details were given by Surendra Pratap
Yadav while filling up attestation form
which was signed on 16.5.2014. The I.G.-
cum-Chief Security Officer/ Reserve
Police Security Force, New Delhi has
considered the claim of the applicant
Surendra Pratap Yadav and has passed the
following order :

"Keeping in view the PVR and
facts represented in the statement of the
candidate have come to the conclusion at
the time of filling up of attestation form
the character of the candidate was
unblemished. Since the candidate was
acquitted in the year 2012 itself hence he
did not record so in the attestation form.
However it is a fact that he made an
incorrect statement of having been never
involved in any criminal case in his life
but I have a reason to believe that it must
have been done in good faith since he got
acquitted in the criminal case long before
filling up of attestation form. Hence, his
action appears to be in good faith.

Hence I have applied my mind
and on evaluation of the facts on record,
extant rules, and having accorded the
opportunity of personal hearing and
representation to the petitioner keeping
with the principles of natural justice, and
in light of directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court judgment in Avtar Singh
Vs. Union of India and others, I hereby
come to the considered conclusion as
Appointing Authority that Shri Surendra
Pratap Yadav is fit for Government
Service as a Constable in RPF/RPSF. The
petitioner may be informed accordingly.

(Jaiaya Varmah)

IG-cum-CSC/RPSF

New Delhi."

29. Similarly, in the case of one
Avneesh Kumar, S/o Rajendra Singh a
speaking order has been passed by the
same respondent authority following the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India
and others by declaring him to be fit for
Government service as a Constable in
R.P.F./ R.P.S.F.

30. Per contra learned counsel for
the respondent authorities submitted that
the act of the petitioners amounted to
suppression of facts as neither in
attestation form nor in the affidavit,
which was filed subsequently, they
disclosed the fact that earlier a criminal
case was filed against them and that in the
said criminal case they were acquitted
before filling up the form, filing the
application
in
response
to
the
advertisement.

31. However, as far as orders passed
by respondents not considering the cases
of petitioners in light of Avtar Singh
(supra) as directed by this Court, he
submitted that petitioners were guilty of
suppression of material fact, which is
evident from their affidavits, therefore, no
benefit can be accorded to them.

32. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material on
record.

33. As it is evident from pleading of
the parties that petitioners had applied for
the post of Constable (GD) in Railway
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Protection Force in March, 2011 and at
that relevant point of time no case were
pending against the petitioners, and it was
subsequently in year 2011 that the cases
under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A
against petitioner no.1, under Section 160
of I.P.C. against petitioner no.2, under
Sections 379, 356 IPC against petitioner
no.3 and under Sections 354, 504, 506
IPC against petitioner no.4 were lodged,
which
ultimately
resulted
in
their
acquittal on 5.5.2014, 21.1.2014, 3.5.2014
and 16.4.2014 respectively. It is also not
in dispute that petitioners had submitted
their attestation form in the year 2014 that
is after their acquittal.

34. Thus, both at the time of
applying for the post of constable as well
as at the time of filling up of the
attestation form, no criminal case was
pending against any of the petitioners.
However, it was the duty of the
petitioners to disclose about the sole
criminal case lodged against them in
which they were ultimately acquitted
before being sent for training. However,
in this regard the Apex Court in case of
Avtar Singh (supra) had exhaustively laid
down
guidelines
for
consideration
regarding the issue of suppression of
material facts while seeking appointment.
The same are extracted hereasunder:

"38. We have noticed various
decisions and tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as possible. In view
of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise
our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the
employer by a candidate as to conviction,
acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a
criminal case, whether before or after
entering into service must be true and
there should be no suppression or false
mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of
termination of services or cancellation of
candidature for giving false information,
the employer may take notice of special
circumstances of the case, if any, while
giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take
into
consideration
the
government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to
the employee, at the time of taking the
decision.

38.4.
In
case
there
is
suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where
conviction or acquittal had already been
recorded
before
filling
of
the
application/verification form and such
fact
later
comes
to
knowledge of
employer, any of the following recourses
appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in
nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at
young age or for a petty offence which if
disclosed would not have rendered an
incumbent unfit for post in question, the
employer may, in its discretion, ignore
such
suppression
of
fact
or
false
information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has
been recorded in case which is not trivial
in
nature,
employer
may
cancel
candidature or terminate services of the
employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already
been recorded in a case involving moral
turpitude or offence of heinous/serious
6 All. Jitendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 941
nature, on technical ground and it is not a
case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the
employer may consider all relevant facts
available as to antecedents, and may take
appropriate
decision
as
to
the
continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the
employee has made declaration truthfully
of a concluded criminal case, the
employer still has the right to consider
antecedents, and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been
truthfully
declared
in
character
verification form regarding pendency of a
criminal case of trivial nature, employer,
in facts and circumstances of the case, in
its discretion, may appoint the candidate
subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate
suppression of fact with respect to
multiple
pending
cases
such
false
information
by
itself
will
assume
significance and an employer may pass
appropriate order cancelling candidature
or terminating services as appointment of
a person against whom multiple criminal
cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was
pending but not known to the candidate at
the time of filling the form, still it may
have adverse impact and the appointing
authority would take decision after
considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is
confirmed
in
service,holding
departmental enquiry would be necessary
before
passing
order
of
termination/removal or dismissal on the
ground of suppression or submitting false
information in verification form.

38.10.
For
determining
suppression
or
false
information
attestation/verification form has to be
specific,
not
vague.
Only
such
information which was required to be
specifically
mentioned
has
to
be
disclosed. If information not asked for but
is relevant comes to knowledge of the
employer the same can be considered in
an objective manner while addressing the
question of fitness. However, in such
cases action cannot be taken on basis of
suppression
or
submitting
false
information as to a fact which was not
even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held
guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio
falsi, knowledge of the fact must be
attributable to him."

35. In Para 38.4.1 the Apex Court
had taken note of the fact that in a case
trivial in nature in which conviction had
been recorded, such as shouting slogangs
at young age or for petty offences which
if undisclosed would not have rendered
incumbent unfit for post in question, the
employer may in its discretion ignore
such
suppression
of
fact
or
false
information by condoning the lapse.
While in the case in hand, petitioners had
already been acquitted of an offence
under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A
(petitioner no.1), under Section 160 of
I.P.C. (petitioner no.2), under Sections
379, 356 IPC (petitioner no.3) and under
Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC (petitioner
no.4).

36. Further, in Para 38.4.3 the Apex
Court while considering in matters in
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which acquittal had already been recorded
in a case involving moral turpitude or
offence of heinous/ serious nature, on
technical ground and it is not a case of
clean acquittal or benefit of reasonable
doubt has been given, the employer may
consider all relevant facts available as to
antecedents, and may take appropriate
decision as to the continuance of the
employee. Thus, the Apex Court in
matters of heinous/ serious crime where
acquittal has been granted on technical
ground has also tried to give benefit to the
employee as to continuance of their
service and the relevant authority may
consider the same taking into the fact the
earlier antecedents of the concerned
employee.

37. As from perusal of the case in
hand, it can safely be said that two
relevant periods that is, time of filling of
the form and secondly, stage of filling up
of the form of attestation, there was no
case pending against petitioners, and an
omission on their part to make disclosure
as mandated would not make them unfit
for consideration for the job in question.

38. The respondents while deciding
claim of petitioners pursuant to remand
order only took note of the form so
submitted by petitioners which were also
before the said authorities earlier in time
but failed to advert to the fact that this
Court
had
required
the
authorities
concerned to look at the case of
petitioners from the angle of principles
laid down in case of Avtar Singh (supra),
which respondents failed to consider and
decide in the light of the same.

39. I find that orders passed by
respondent
no.7
dated
1.3.2017,
respondent no.4 dated 20.3.2017 and
respondent no.5 dated 27.3.2017 are not
in the light of directions of this Court
dated
18.10.2016,
22.11.2016
and
22.12.2016 as such the same cannot be
sustained and are, hereby, quashed.

40. The respondents are expected to
decide the claim of petitioners in the light
of directions given by this Court earlier
on
18.10.2016,
22.11.2016
and
22.12.2016 as well as in light of principle
laid down in case of Avtar Singh (supra).
It is also expected that the entire exercise
shall be completed by the respondents
authorities
expeditiously,
preferably,
within a period of one month from the
date of production of certified copy of
this order, in accordance with law, by
reasoned and speaking order.

41. With the above direction, the
writ petition stands partly allowed.
----------
(2020)06ILR A942
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

WRIT A No. 59005 of 2012
connectedwith
WRIT A No. 47512 of 2015

Lokendra Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

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

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anant Vijay

Service Law - Appointment/Transfer -
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921: