# Jitendra Tiwari & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1933
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-09-10
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 70374 of 2011
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-tiwari-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44686
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India- Article 226-
seeking payment of salary from State
Exchequer from the date of appointment
in the primary section- primary school
attached to intermediate college.

Primary institution teachers were brought
in grant-in-aid list of the State Government-
entitle
to
receive
salary
from
State
Exchequer-District
Inspector
of
School
granted
prior
approval
for
publishing
notification for vacancies- Published in
"Jagat Asha Deoria" and "Deoria Express
Deoria"- no A. Service Law - U.P. Cooperative
Societies
Employees
Service
Regulation, 1975: Regulation 84; U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited Karamchari
Seva Niyamawali, 1980: Rule 83

The Single Judge while relying on the
judgment of Single Judge passed in Satya
Narain Vs Praband Nideshak and ors dispensed
the appellant from service and ordered for
recovery of pecuniary loss caused from the
embezzlement of money, thereby awarding
identical set of two punishments which are
awarded simultaneously.

The Division Bench in Virendra Kumar Gupta
vs. State of U.P. and ors without taking note of
the judgment of Single Judge of Satya Narain
(Supra) emphasized that Regulation 84 of the
Regulation 1975 prevail over and above
Niyamawali,
1980
therefore
only
one
punishment could have been awarded.

The matter has been referred to the larger
bench as to analyze the correct position of law
when punishment is awarded under Regulation
84 read with Rule 83.
Matter referred to Larger Bench (E-10)

Cases referred:-
1934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

2 All. Jitendra Tiwari & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1933
derived no advantage from his examination of
the U.P. Board while seeking admission in
Intermediate course. Thus, from any angle the
matter is to be looked into, the impugned
orders dated April 20, 2011 and May 10, 2011
passed by the respondents are null and void,
apart from the fact that they are in violation of
the principles of natural justice.

9. The appeal is, accordingly,
allowed with costs by quashing the
aforesaid impugned orders and reversing
the impugned judgment of the High
Court. The appellant shall, accordingly,
be entitled to all consequential benefits."

21. The law laid by the Hon'ble
Apex Court cited in the preceding
paragraph is fully applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case.

22. In view of the aforesaid the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 10.9.2018 (Annexure No. 13 to this
writ petition) passed by Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Bijnor i.e. respondent no. 4. is
hereby
quashed
and
consequently
respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner forthwith with all consequential
benefits.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1933

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Writ A No. 70374 of 2011

Jitendra Tiwari & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Sri A. Kumar, Sri
Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, Sri S.P. Rai, Sri
Vinod Kumar Singh.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Harshita Raghuvanshi.

A. Constitution of India- Article 226-
seeking payment of salary from State
Exchequer from the date of appointment
in the primary section- primary school
attached to intermediate college.

Primary institution teachers were brought
in grant-in-aid list of the State Government-
entitle
to
receive
salary
from
State
Exchequer-District
Inspector
of
School
granted
prior
approval
for
publishing
notification for vacancies- Published in
"Jagat Asha Deoria" and "Deoria Express
Deoria"- no A. Service Law - U.P. Cooperative
Societies
Employees
Service
Regulation, 1975: Regulation 84; U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited Karamchari
Seva Niyamawali, 1980: Rule 83

The Single Judge while relying on the
judgment of Single Judge passed in Satya
Narain Vs Praband Nideshak and ors dispensed
the appellant from service and ordered for
recovery of pecuniary loss caused from the
embezzlement of money, thereby awarding
identical set of two punishments which are
awarded simultaneously.

The Division Bench in Virendra Kumar Gupta
vs. State of U.P. and ors without taking note of
the judgment of Single Judge of Satya Narain
(Supra) emphasized that Regulation 84 of the
Regulation 1975 prevail over and above
Niyamawali,
1980
therefore
only
one
punishment could have been awarded.

The matter has been referred to the larger
bench as to analyze the correct position of law
when punishment is awarded under Regulation
84 read with Rule 83.
Matter referred to Larger Bench (E-10)

Cases referred:-
1934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Committee of Management, Shivdei Balika
Junior High School, Bilaspur, Pilibhit & anr Vs
St of U.P. & ors Writ Petition No. 59940 of
2010
2. Lalit Mohan Misra & anr Vs District
Inspector of Schools & ors (1979) ALJ 1025
3. Chandra Mohan Pandey Vs D.I.O.S., C.O.M.,
Mahant Triveni Parvat Inter College & ors
(2005) 6 AWC 6029
4. Ashok Kumar Das & ors Vs University of
Burdwan & ors (2010) 3 SCC 616

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J.)

1. The petitioners (five in number) are
claiming payment of salary from the State
Exchequer with effect from the date of their
appointment i.e. on 18.05.2001 in the primary
section (upto class V) attached to the
institution namely Gyan Prakash Intermediate
College, Bhaluwani, Deoria.

2. The stand of the petitioners is that
the primary institution was established in
the aforesaid institution in the year 1969
after it was granted recognition by the
District Inspector of Schools vide letter
No.582 dated 17.03.1969. Thereafter, the
order of attachment of the said section to the
intermediate college was passed. The order
of recognition or attachment are not on
record. Moreover, there is no dispute about
the fact that the primary institution is being
run since its establishment in the year 1969
as an integral part of the intermediate
institution having common management
and is being managed by the duly
constituted committee of management.

3. It is stated in the writ petition that
the teacher as well as student attendance
register being maintained in the institution
have been verified from time to time by
the
District
Inspector
of
School
concerned. The payment of salary to the
primary teachers was initially being made
form the reimbursement grant received
from time to time from the State
Government as well as out of managerial
resources. By the Government order dated
06.09.1989, issued to bring the primary
teachers attached to 393 boys higher
secondary school, the primary institution
teachers of the institution in question were
brought on the grant-in-aid list of the
State Government. Consequently the
teachers working in the primary section
were held entitled to get salary from the
State exchequer. The circular dated
28.12.1989 was then issued by the
Director of Education (Mahdyamik), U.P.
providing for standard/fixing strength of
the students per class/section as 40 (for
class I to V) in continuation of the circular
dated 21.10.1989, which in turn was
issued
for
implementation
of
the
Government order dated 06.09.1989 for
bringing the attached primary schools to
higher secondary institution running since
1973 or prior to that, in the grant-in-aid
list of the State Government.

4. As per the aforesaid circular dated
28.12.1989, the standard per class/section
of the teacher-student ratio to 1:40 was to
be determined on the basis of strength of
students as on 30.09.1989, it also
provided that there should be one teacher
for each class/section.

5. The submission of the petitioners
is that previously the attached primary
section of the institution-in-question was
sanctioned 14 sections as per the strength
of the students, but in the year 1990, the
strength of students was increased to 880
which necessitated sanction of more
2 All. Jitendra Tiwari & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1935
sections and teacher to man the same. The
District Inspector of Schools vide letter
dated 06.06.1990 granted approval for
sanction of 11 additional sections in view
of the increased strength of students to
880 in the primary section. It became,
therefore, incumbent on the management
to appoint 11 more teachers for the
additional sections approved by the
District Inspector of School. As the total
number of sections was increased from 14
to 25, the committee of management of
the institution had advertised vacancies in
the daily newspaper "Akashmarg" on
15.05.1995 and after due selection, five
teachers namely Tej Pratap Singh, Amar
Nath Mishra, Bhanu Pratap Yadav, Smt.
Anju Singh and Rajendra Prasad Yadav
were appointed and joined the institution.

6. The papers pertaining to their
selection was transmitted to the District
Inspector of School, Deoria for financial
approval but he sat tight over the matter.
Resultantly, a Writ Petition No.29388 of
1995 (Tez Pratap Singh Vs. D.I.O.S.
Deoria & others) was filed which was
disposed of vide judgement and order
dated
06.08.2002
relegating
the
petitioners therein to approach the District
Inspector of Schools who was required to
take a decision by passing a reasoned
order. Pursuant thereto, the teachers filed
representation but the District Inspector of
School had refused to grant approval,
which was subjected to challenge in Writ
Petition No.35852 of 2004 (Bhanu
Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. &
others) and other writ petitions being
filed by the remaining teachers.

7. The Writ Petition No.35852 of
2004
was
decided
on
02.09.2004
quashing the order dated 15.05.2004
passed by the District Inspector of School,
Deoria further relegating the matter for
fresh decision by the District Inspector of
School for grant of financial approval to
the appointment of the said petitioners.
Consequently,
vide
order
dated
03.07.2006, the District Inspector of
Schools, Deoria granted approval to the
appointment of Bhanu Pratap Singh made
in the primary section noticing that
additional sections were approved by the
District Inspector of School making the
strength to 25.

8. It is then contended that two
selected teachers namely Sri Amar Nath
Mishra and Smt. Anju Singh did not join
nor they made further claim for approval.
Resultantly, five posts of teachers in the
primary section fell vacant, as against 25
sanctioned post 20 teachers were working
at that point of time.

9. Looking to the shortage of teachers
in the primary section, the management
wrote to the District Inspector of School on
23.04.2001 seeking prior approval for
notification of the vacancies, which was
duly granted by the District Inspector of
School. The vacancies were published in the
daily newspaper "Jagat Asha Deoria" and
"Deoria Express Deoria" on 25.04.2001.
The petitioners herein claim to have been
selected by a duly constituted selection
committee
pursuant
to
the
said
advertisement and states that appointment
letter were issued to them by the committee
of management on 10.05.2001. It is claimed
that the petitioners had joined their duties as
Assistant Teachers in the attached primary
school to the institution-in-question on
18.05.2001 and are discharging their duties
since thereafter.

10. The papers pertaining to
selection of petitioners were forwarded to
1936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the District Inspector of School on
10.05.2001 itself for grant of financial
approval but till date, no approval has
been granted nor salary had been paid to
the petitioners from the State exchequer.
The management had sent reminders on
16.10.2002, further in the year 2003-04
last being dated 11.04.2011. Inspite of the
best efforts made by the management, the
District Inspector of School did not grant
approval to the appointment/selection of
the petitioners against the substantive
vacancies. The petitioners, thus, pray for a
writ of mandamus commanding the
District Inspector of School, Deoria to
accord
financial
approval
to
the
selection/appointment of the petitioners
and pay them salary from the State
exchequer with effect from the date of
their joining i.e. 18.05.2001.

11. The submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that with the
sanction of additional sections by the
District Inspector of Schools, being
satisfied with the increased strength of the
students in the primary section, no
exception could be taken by him for
selection or appointment. Even otherwise,
prior approval was taken for notifying the
vacancies as on 25.04.2001. The District
Inspector of School cannot keep quiet
over the matter for such a long period.
Approval was duly accorded to other
teachers who had approached this Court at
an earlier point of time against the
increased
strength
of
the
teachers
pursuant to the increase of sections.

12. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further contends that by the
Government order dated 24.07.2001 a ban
was imposed for appointment/approval of
the primary teachers in the attached
primary sections of secondary education
institutions which were taken on grant-inaid list in the year 1958 and 1989, till
framing of the Services Regulation. The
District
Inspector
of
Schools
were
directed to determine strength of the
attached primary institution (from the date
of maintenance grant till issuance of the
said Government order). Again vide
Government order dated 19.04.2003, a
complete ban was imposed for creation of
post, permission for additional section,
appointment and approval of teachers in
attached primary institutions without prior
permission of the State Government.
Appointment against the vacancies arose
as a result of retirement of the then
incumbent could be made as against the
sanctioned post, after fresh determination
of strength of students, sanctioned post
and the working strength after prior
permission of the State Government.

13. The aforesaid ban was relaxed
vide Government order dated 25.05.2012
considering the fact that complete ban in
the matter of appointment had disturbed
the teaching work in the primary
institution and in view of the mandate of
the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009, it
became necessary to appoint requisite
number of teachers timely in the primary
institutions.
Taking
note
of
the
observations made by this Court in Writ
Petition No.12977 of 2012 and 25733 of
2012, it was noted therein that the matter
of
framing
regulations
for
selection/appointment of teachers in the
attached primary school was subject
matter of active consideration of the State
Government. However, till the said
regultion
are
framed,
the
District
Inspector of School is empowered to fill
up the vacant posts in the attached
primary institution subject to the terms
2 All. Jitendra Tiwari & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1937
and conditions provided therein which are
relevant to be quoted herein:-

1. पद ृिन, अजतररक्त कक्षा वगच
की अनुमजत जदये िाने का अजधकार जिला
जवद्यालय जनरीक्षक को नहीिं होगा

2. अनुदाजनत होने के मय म्बद्ध
प्राईमरी प्रभाग की िनशल्दक्त जकतनी थी और
उ के ापेक्ष वतचमान में जकतनी िनशल्दक्त है,
का म्यक परीक्षण जिला जवद्यालय जनरीक्षक
द्वारा जकया िाना आपेजक्षत होगा।

3. प्रबन्धतिंत्र द्वारा जक ी ृजित पद
के जवरुद्ध जनयुक्त की अनुमजत जिला जवद्यालय
जनरीक्षक े मािंगी िायेगी तो जिला जवद्यालय
जनरीक्षक द्वारा उक्त जवद्यालय में अध्ययनरत
छात्रो की पिंिीकृत छात्र िंख्या, औचक
जनरीक्षण में छात्रो की उपल्दथथजत का िंज्ञान लेना
होगा

4. जिला जवद्यालय जनरीक्षण यह
 ुजनजित करेगा जक जनयुक्त की प्रजक्रया
पारदशी है, और वह यह भी देखेंगे जक ररक्त
पदो के जवरुद्ध भती हेतु जवज्ञापन जदया गया है
अथवा नहीिं

5. जिला जवद्यालय जनरीक्षण द्वारा
िब भती हेतु अनुमजत दी िायेगी तो उ की
 ूचना जशक्षा जनदेशक एविं शा न को जनजित
रूप े उपलब्ध कराया िाना आवश्यक होगा।

6. जिला जवद्यालय जनरीक्षक द्वारा
छात्रो की िंख्या के ापेक्ष कायचरत अध्यापको
की िंख्या का परीक्षण मानक के अनु ार
जकया िाना अजनवायच होगा।

7. जिला जवद्यालय जनरीक्षक यह
 ुजनजित करेंगे की आरक्षण जनयमो का कड़ाई
 े अनुपालन जकया िा रहा है।

8. िंयुक्त जशक्षा जनदेशको द्वारा
िनपदीय भ्रमण के दौरान म्बल्दन्धत जिला
जवद्यालय जनरीक्षण द्वारा पदो को भरे िाने हेतु
दी गयी अनुमजत का त्यापन जनजित रूप े
जकया िाना ुजनजित जकया िायेगा।

9. जवद्यालय प्रबन्धतिंत्र एविं जिला
जवद्यालय जनरीक्षक की दुरजभ ल्दन्ध का प्रकरण
 िंज्ञान में आने पर जनयमानु ार दण्डात्मक
कायचवाही म्बल्दन्धत क्षम स्तर े की िायेगी।

14. Placing the said Government order
dated 25.05.2012, it is contended by the
learned Advocate that the ban imposed by
the Government order was revoked with the
direction to make appointment of teachers in
the attached primary institutions looking to
the strength of students studying therein. It is,
thus, vehemently contended that after
removal of ban, it was incumbent on the
District Inspector of School, Deoria to grant
approval
to
the
appointment
of
the
petitioners against the substantive vacancies.
Reliance is placed upon the judgements of
this Court in Writ Petition No.59940 of 2010
(Committee of Management, Shivdei
Balika Junior High School, Bisalpur,
Pilibhit & another Vs. State of U.P. &
others), Lalit Mohan Misra & another Vs.
District Inspector of Schools & others,
reported in 1979 ALJ 1025, Chandra
Mohan Pandey Vs. D.I.O.S.; Committee
of Management, Mahant Triveni Parvat
Inter College & others) reported in 2005 (6)
AWC 6029, Ashika Prasad Shukla Vs.
District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad
reported in 1998 (3) AWC 2150 to submit
that
approval
being
granted
to
the
appointment of petitioners would be effective
from
the
date
of
their
initial
appointment/joining as posts were advertised
after seeking prior approval of the District
Inspector
of
School
who
had
duly
determined the sanctioned strength for grant
permission to make appointment against the
available vacancies.

15. Counter affidavit filed on behalf
of respondent no.2 i.e. District Inspector
of Schools, however, states that when the
1938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attached primary institution was taken on
grant-in-aid list on 06.09.1989, at that
point of time 14 posts of teachers were
sanctioned. The District Inspector of
School vide order dated 06.06.1990
granted permission to run 11 additional
sections looking to the strength of the
students. Resultantly, against 25 sections
sanctioned, 20 teachers were working
when
appointment
of
the
present
petitioners
was
made
against
five
vacancies. The committee of management
though sent a letter dated 23.04.2001
pressing the necessity of the teachers in
the
primary
institution
but
without
waiting for prior approval of the District
Inspector of School, vacancies were
advertised on 25.04.2001. It is then
contended that the District Inspector of
School could not have determined the
necessity of appointment of teachers in
the primary section without making a spot
inspection, so as to verify the strength of
the students studying at the relevant point
of time.

16. As far as the selection of the
petitioners is concerned, it is contended
that the publication of vacancy in the
newspaper "Deoria Express" cannot be
said to be proper, in as much as, the
aforesaid paper was not having wide
circulation in District Deoria. Objections
have
also
been
raised
regarding
constitution of the selection committee
and further that no appointment letter
could be issued to the petitioners without
getting approval of the selection made by
the committee of management. It is urged
that since appointments are not in
accordance
with
law,
the
State
Government cannot be asked to make
payment.
It
is
the
committee
of
management of the institution which has
to pay salary to the teachers/petitioners. It
is further contended that the reminder
letters though were received in the office
of the District Inspector of School, Deoria
but original record pertaining to the
selection proceeding was not made
available in the office of the said
respondents and hence no decision could
be taken with regard to the selection of
the petitioners. Reference has been made
to
the
Government
order
dated
24.07.2001 to state that in view of the
specific
direction
of
the
State
Government, no appointment of the
teachers in the attached primary section
could be made by the committee of
management without prior permission of
the District Inspector of School who in
turn was required to seek permission of
the State Government.

17. The committee of management
filed a counter affidavit to support the
stand of the petitioners to seek payment of
salary from the State exchequer and
further to state that the entire papers with
regard
to
the
appointment
of
the
petitioners were sent to the District
Inspector
of
School,
Deoria
on
10.05.2001
for
according
financial
approval and that the same was received
in the office of the District Inspector of
School on the same date.

18. In the rejoinder affidavit, all the
aforesaid
assertions
of
the
counter
affidavit are denied and it is reiterated that
the vacancies were in existence on the
date of appointment, it is incorrect to say
that the documents/record pertaining to
selection was not forwarded by it.

19. In his argument learned counsel
for the petitioners relied on the judgement
of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Das
& others Vs. University of Burdwan &
2 All. Jitendra Tiwari & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1939
others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 616 to
submit that the approval can be ex-post
facto and any action taken before
"approval" stands validated as soon as,
"approval" is granted. Only in a case
where ex-post facto "approval" is refused,
the appointment/action taken pending
approval
stands
invalidated.
It
is
contended that there was no requirement
of seeking "prior approval" for making
selection to the substantive vacancies.
Any "approval" being granted by the
District Inspector of School looking to the
record of selection would validate the
action of the committee of management in
making appointments, in as much as, no
objection has been taken by the District
Inspector of School with regard to the
eligibility
of
the
petitioners
for
appointment to the post of Assistant
Teachers in the attached primary section.

20. To deal with this, relevant is to
note
that
the
appointment
of
the
petitioners on the post of Assistant
Teacher in primary section required "prior
approval" and not simply "approval" by
the District Inspector of School. That
means before making appointment, the
record of selection was required to be
examined by the District Inspector of
School to ascertain that there was no
discrepancy in the procedure of selection
and the selected teachers possessed
requisite eligibility qualification. "Prior
approval" as has been explained by the
Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Das
(supra) means a condition which presupposes the action to be taken after grant
of "approval" by the competent authority.
If an appointment is made with the "prior
approval" of a competent authority, any
appointment is to be made without that
would be invalid and the approval if any
granted in future would not validate the
said act rather the appointment would
stand approved from the date of approval
only.

21. In the case of the petitioners
herein, "prior approval" being a precondition to the appointment was required
to
be
fulfilled
before
issuance
of
appointment letters to the petitioners. It,
therefore,
cannot
be
said
that
the
appointment made by the committee of
management without approval of the
District Inspector of School would put
obligation on the State to pay salary from
the State exchequer merely for the fact
that the appointments were made against
the substantive vacancies.

22. It is further noteworthy that the
petitioners claim to have been selected
and appointed in the month of April &
May, 2001. The ban imposed by the State
Government vide Government order dated
24.07.2001, therefore, would not cover
them. However, at the same time it is
noted that the District Inspector of
Schools, Deoria was not empowered to
create new sections and permit sanction of
posts, as sanction of posts is within the
domain of the State Government. In case
of any requirement of additional sections,
coupled with the need to create posts to
man the same, appropriate course of
action for the District Inspector of
Schools was to make an inspection of the
primary institution and submit a report to
the
State
Government
making
his
recommendation after ascertaining the
number of students studying therein.
Under the Government order dated
25.05.2012, the District Inspector of
Schools
has
been
empowered
to
determine
the
sanctioned
strength/requirement of teachers in an
attached primary school at the time of
1940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bringing the institution on the grant-in-aid
list. He is further required to make
surprise inspection of the institution from
time to time so as to satisfy as to the
number of students registered and actually
studying therein. He would also be
required to determine the strength of the
teachers in the ratio of students as per the
fixed standard.

23. It is, thus, clear that the District
Inspector of Schools could not have
unilaterally accepted the claim of the
committee of management for creation of
additional sections and increase of the
strength of teachers. Such decision could
have been taken only by the State
Government
after
a
report/recommendation in this regard
would have been submitted by the District
Inspector of School.

24. In the said scenario, the decision
of the District Inspector of School not to
grant
financial
approval
to
the
appointments of the petitioners cannot be
said to be illegal.

25. This apart, the District Inspector
of School has categorically asserted that
the committee of management of the
institution did not provide necessary
documents pertaining to the selection and
further that the advertisement was not
made in two daily newspapers of wide
circulation. No exception could be taken
to the said reasons of denial of approval
by the District Inspector of Schools in its
stand taken in the counter affidavit.

26. For the aforesaid, no mandamus
can be issued. However, it is left open for
the committee of management to request
the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria
to make a fresh inspection of the
institution-in-question and to submit his
recommendations
to
the
State
Government strictly in accordance with
the
conditions
provided
in
the
Government order dated 25.05.2012 by
determining the sanctioned strength of the
attached primary sections in the standard
teacher-students ratio. In case, the District
Inspector of Schools finds that the number
of students studying in the institution are
much more and the students-teachers ratio
is not in accordance with the fixed
standard, he shall submit a comprehensive
report for consideration before the State
Government.

27. On presentation of the said
report, the State Government would be
under obligation to take an expeditious
decision in accordance with law.

28. Subject to the above, the writ
petition is disposed of.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1940

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Writ A No. 25018 of 2018

Lokendra Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Saxena, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari,
Sri Ashish Pandey.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.