# Jyoti Kumari & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 829
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-14
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 25 of 2022
- **Bench:** Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jyoti-kumari-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47883
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law of precedents-Petitioners are working as
Health Worker (Female)/ ANM (Auxiliary Nurse
Midwife) on contract basis-challenging G.O.-to
the extent it grants approval to the U.P.
Subordinate Service Selection Commission for
holding two-level/phase examination system for
Group "C" post of Health Worker (female)-All
issues raised-decided by this Court in one
matter or the other-issues are no longer res
integra-Single judge of a High Court is ordinarily
bound to accept as correct judgments of Courts
of coordinate jurisdiction and of Division
Benches and of Full Bench.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Jyoti Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
829
been brought on record in the Public
Interest Litigation.

29. Thus, it is evident that Sri Sanjeev
Agarwal was not only representing the trust,
but he was also representing the reviewapplicant herein and in view thereof, I do not
find any substance in the submission of the
review-applicant that the review-applicant
got prejudiced as it was not made a party in
the Public Interest Litigation.

30. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
this Court does not find any ground to review
the judgment and order dated 5.7.2022 and,
therefore, the same is rejected. However, no
order as to costs.

31. The District Magistrate, Hardoi and
all authorities are directed to implement the
judgement and order dated 5.7.2022 under
review within a period of fifteen days from
today.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 829
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ-A No. 25 of 2022
alongwith other connected cases

Jyoti Kumari & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Alok Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra

Law of precedents-Petitioners are working as
Health Worker (Female)/ ANM (Auxiliary Nurse
Midwife) on contract basis-challenging G.O.-to
the extent it grants approval to the U.P.
Subordinate Service Selection Commission for
holding two-level/phase examination system for
Group "C" post of Health Worker (female)-All
issues raised-decided by this Court in one
matter or the other-issues are no longer res
integra-Single judge of a High Court is ordinarily
bound to accept as correct judgments of Courts
of coordinate jurisdiction and of Division
Benches and of Full Bench.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. Sant Lal Gupta & ors. Vs Modern Cooperative
Group
Housing
Society
Ltd.
and
Ors.,
(2010)13SCC336

2. St.of Punjab & anr. Vs Devans Modern
Breweries ltd. & anr., (2004) 11 SCC 26
(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Alok Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurava
Mehrotra,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent, Sri Utsav Mishra, learned
counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate
Service Selection Commission and Ms.
Shagun Srivastava, learned State Law
Officer.

2. The petitioners in the present bunch
of petitions claims to have been working on
the post of Health Worker (female)/ANM
(Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) in different
districts of the state of Uttar Pradesh on
contract basis and have sought to challenge
the legality & validity of the Government
order dated 20.11.2020, to the extent it
grants approval to the Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate
Services
Selection
Commission for holding two-level/phase
examination system for Group "C" post
including the post of Health Worker
(female).
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. A challenge has been sought to be
laid to the advertisement dated 25-05-2021,
whereby a Preliminary Eligibility Test (PET)
has been conducted for all those desirous
candidates seeking employment in any Group
"C" Post in the state of Uttar Pradesh. A
further challenge is also made to the
advertisement dated 15-12-2021, whereby
only those candidates had been found to be
eligible
for
applying
for
the
main
examination for the post of Health Worker
(Female), who had earlier appeared in the
PET.

4. Suffice to say, the Petitioners have
filed the present writ petition praying for the
following reliefs:

(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned advertisements dated 25.5.2021
and 15.12.2021 issued by the opposite party
no. 3, contained as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2
respectively to this writ petition, to the extent
the same pertains to the selection of Health
Worker (Female).

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties not to give effect to the
impugned advertisements dated 25.5.2021
and 15.12.2021 issued by the opposite party
no. 3, contained as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2
respectively to this writ petition, to the extent
the same pertains to the selection of Health
Worker (Female);

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 10.8.2021 as well as
the impugned Government order dated
20.11.2020, to the extent it grants approval to
the Commission for holding two-level/phase
examination system for Group-C post, issued
by the opposite party no. 1 i.e. the State
Government, contained as Annexure Nos. 3
& 4 respectively to this writ petition.

(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the opposite parties not to give effect to the
impugned order dated 10.8.2021 as well as
the impugned Government order dated
20.11.2020 to the extent it grants approval
to the Commission for holding twolevel/phase examination system for GroupC post, issued by the opposite party no. 1
i.e. the State Government, contained as
Annexure Nos. 3 & 4 respectively to this
writ petition.

(v) Or in the alternative, to issue a
writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus
commanding
the
opposite
parties to permit the petitioners to appear in
written test in pursuance of the impugned
advertisement dated 15.12.2021 for the
main examination for the post of Health
Worker (Female) keeping in view the letter
of the State Government dated 7.7.2021,
contained as Annexure No. 11 to this writ
petition, and ignoring the impugned order
dated 10.8.2021 issued by the State
Government, contained as Annexure No. 3
to this writ petition.

(vi) to pass such other or direction,
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of
the case in favour of the petitioners.

(vii) allow the writ petition with the
costs in favour of the petitioners.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that
the said PET being conducted by the Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection
Commission is in complete violation of the
Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family
Welfare Department, Health workers and
Health Supervisors (Male & Female) Nongazette service Rules, 2018 relating to
experience relaxation, direct recruitment
etc. The petitioners have also grounded
their writ petition on the order dated
10.08.2021 passed by the state government,
11 All. Jyoti Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
831
wherein, although the state government
rejected the proposal of the Health
Department for exemption/relation of the
PET for the post of Health Worker (female)
as
selection
process
has
already
commenced, but has allegedly assured that
the said proposal shall be considered in
future and as such it has been alternatively
prayed that permission may be granted to
the petitioners to appear in the written test
in pursuance to the advertisement dated
15.12.2021
for
the
post
of
Health
worker(female).

6. Notice was issued to the
respondents and a counter-affidavit has
been filed by the additional chief secretary,
department of Medical, Health & family
Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
seeking dismissal of the present writ
petition on three grounds:

A. The last date of submission of
online
application
forms
etc.
in
advertisement dated 15.12.2021 was 05-012022 and the last date of amendment in any
such applications was 12-10-2022.

B. The female health workers who are
presently working in the department on
contract basis are given weightage of 15
numbers and 5 years of age relaxation on
the basis of their experience as provided in
the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and
Family
Welfare
Department,
Health
workers and Health Supervisors (Male &
Female) Non-gazette service Rules, 2018.

C. Similar writ petition being Writ-A
96 of 2022 (Smt. Mridul and 15 others) had
been filed in the present court, wherein a
coordinate bench has passed a detailed
order dated 04.02.2022 while dismissing
the said writ petition. Further, even an
intra-court appeal preferred being Special
Appeal No. 74 of 2022 has also been
pleased to dismiss the said special appeal
vide an order dated 09-03-2022.

7. This court has given its anxious
thoughts to the issue involved in the present
writ petition and finds that the issue in the
present case has been already dealt with
earlier by a coordinate bench of this court,
as has been rightly pointed by the Ld.
Counsel for the respondents. The said
judgment
dated
04.02.2022
squarely
applies to the four corners of the facts of
the present case. The said judgement can be
profitably curled in as follows:

"................... The Court may, first of
all, refer to the Uttar Pradesh Medical,
Health and Family Welfare Department
Health Workers and Health Supervisors
(Male and Female) Non-Gazetted, Service
Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ''the
Rules, 2018').

Part-V of the said Rules deals with the
procedure for recruitment. As per Rule 14
contained therein the appointing authority
is required to determine the number of
vacancies to be filled during the course of
the year of recruitment etc and the number
of vacancies to be filled through the
Commission are required to be intimated to
it. Rule 15(a) of the Rules, 2018 reads as
under: -

"15. (a) Direct recruitment to the
Posts of Health Worker (Male) and Health
Worker (Female) shall be made in
accordance with the Uttar Pradesh direct
recruitment to Group ''C' Posts (Mode and
Procedure), Rules, 2015, as amended from
time to time."

Clause (b) and (c) of Rule 15 of the
Rules, 2018 deal with weightage to a
person who is working as Auxiliary Nurse
Midwife on contract basis which is not
relevant for the purposes of this case.
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In view of Rule 15 (a) of the Rules, 2018
direct recruitment to the posts of Health
Worker (Female) is to be made in
accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Direct
Recruitment to Group ''C' Posts (Mode and
Procedure),
Rules,
2015,
(hereinafter
referred to as ''the Rules, 2015') as amended
from time to time. The Court may, therefore,
straightaway referred to these Rules of 2015.
Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 2015 deals with the
procedure for direct recruitment and it reads
as under:-

"8(1)
The
procedure
for
direct
recruitment, the syllabus, marks of written
examination/interview and the rules relating
thereof shall be such as prescribed by the
Commission from time to time with the
approval of the Government."

Now, as per Rule 15 (a) of the Rules,
2015 Procedure for Direct Recruitment etc
shall be such as prescribed by the
Commission from time to time with the
approval of the Government.

Now, in this very context, the Court may
refer to U.P. Subordinate Services Selection
Commission (Procedure & Conduct of
Business), Regulation, 2015
(hereinafter
referred to as ''the Regulation, 2015') which
have been made by the U.P. Subordinate
Services Selection Commission, with the prior
approval of the State Government, in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 16 and 23 of
the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection
Commission Act, 2014.

Now,
Regulation
6
of
the
said
Regulation, 2015 deals with the procedure for
selection of candidates. The Regulation 6 of
the Regulation, 2015 is quoted hereinbelow: -

"(1)
The
Commission
shall
make
selection of candidates examination or by
interview or by both through objective or other
form of test in accordance with the provisions
of the relevant service rules/regulations.

(2) The Commission may with the prior
approval of the Government, hold a
combined competitive examination for a
group of posts and may also take a
preliminary test or examination for screening
of candidates.

(3) The Commission shall advertise the
vacancies through the Print media or
Electronic media or both and invite
applications
from
eligible
candidates.
Manner of inviting application forms includes
online submission of application forms
through Internet as prescribed by the
Commission.
Applications
received
in
response
to
advertisement
shall
be
scrutinized by the office in the manner
determined from time to time.

(4) In making selection by competitive
examination
or
interview
including
preliminary
examination
or
test,
the
Commission may take recourse to modern
testing aids including the use of computers at
one or more stages of selection viz the stages
of receipt and processing of applications,
issue of call letters, evaluation of answer
books, issue of interview letters and
processing of results under the close
supervision of one or more officers of the
Commission to be nominated by the
Chairperson.

5) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in relevant Service Rules
or Government orders regarding recruitment,
the Commission may hold preliminary
examination/screening test for finding out
suitable candidates for admission to main
examination or interview, as the case may be.

(6) Preliminary examination shall mean
screening test to be conducted by the
Commission with the purpose of finding out
suitable candidates in required proportion as
fixed by the Commission in each category,
reserved and unreserved for admission to the
main examination or interview, as the case
may be.

(7) Preliminary examination shall be
conducted in the manner prescribed in the
11 All. Jyoti Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
833
Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment through
Public Service Commission Preliminary
Examination Rules, 1986 as amended from
time to time, which is deemed to be adopted
for the said purpose. The marks obtained
by the candidates in the preliminary
examination/screening test shall not be
counted for determining final order of
merit.

(8) The Commission shall fix the
place, dates and time of examination which
includes
preliminary
examination/
screening test and main examination, as the
case may be.

(9) The centers of examinations shall
be fixed with prior approval of the
Commission.

(10)
All
arrangements
for
such
examinations shall be made by the
Controller of Examination cum Joint
Secretary in consultation with the Secretary
and in accordance with such directions as
may be issued by the Commission in that
behalf."

On a bare reading of the above quoted
Regulation
6,
it
is
clear
that
the
Commission is empowered to take a
preliminary
test
or
examination
for
screening of candidates with the prior
approval
of
the
Government.
Subregulation (5) of the Regulation 6, in fact,
goes on to state that notwithstanding
anything contained in relevant service rules
or
government
orders
regarding
recruitment, the Commission may hold
preliminary examination/ screening test for
finding
out
suitable
candidates
for
admission
for
main
examination
or
interview, as the case may be.

Sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 6
says that the preliminary examination shall
mean screening test to be conducted by the
Commission with the purpose of finding out
suitable candidates in required proportion
as fixed by the Commission in each
category, reserved and unreserved for
admission to the main examination or
interview, as the case may be.

Sub-regulation (7) of Regulation (6)
says that preliminary examination shall be
conducted in the manner prescribed in the
Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment through
Public Service Commission Preliminary
Eligibility Test Rules, 1986 as amended
from time to time, which is deemed to be
adopted for the said purpose.

The marks obtained by the candidates
in the preliminary examination/ screening
test shall not be counted for determining
final order of merit.

Thus, the only argument raised by Sri
A.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is no provision for
holding a preliminary test is belied from
the provisions quoted hereinabove. It is not
his case that prior approval of the
Government has not been taken before
holding such preliminary test, nevertheless,
as informed by Sri Mehrotra such prior
approval has been taken and is referred in
the letter of the Commission dated
22.07.2021.

This apart, learned counsel for the
Commission also informs the Court that
though the petitioners have annexed a
letter
of
Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Medical & Health dated 07.07.2021
requesting the Commission to do away with
the provision for Preliminary Eligibility
Test for the post of Health Workers
(Female) for which the Auxiliary Nurse
Midwife are eligible for being considered,
what the petitioners have not disclosed is
that based on this, the Commission had
sought
guidance
from
the
Karmik
Department of the State Government vide
its letter dated 22.07.2021 and Karmik
Department of the State Government
informed the Commission with a copy of
the decision to the Additional Chief
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Secretary, Medical & Health that the
proposal of the department for doing away
with the preliminary eligibility test cannot
be accepted at this stage when the
selection/ examination has already been set
in motion.

Be that as it may, in view of the
discussion already made, as no other
ground has been pressed by learned
counsel for the petitioner before this Court
and there is a provision under which the
preliminary test could be held by the
Commission, the post being within the
purview of the Commission and there being
no dispute in this regard, the petition fails
and is dismissed."

8. Further, this court has been
informed that an intra-court appeal had
been filed against the aforesaid order of the
Ld. Coordinate bench, which was also
dismissed vide an order dated 09.03.2022
passed in Special Appeal No. 94 of 2022,
wherein the Hon'ble Division bench has by
upholding the Judgment passed by the Ld.
Single Judge has inter-alia concluded:

"....For the reasons disclosed and
discussion made above, we are in complete
agreement with the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge which is under
challenge herein. The special appeal is,
thus, dismissed."

9. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
has also argued that the facts of the
aforesaid decided case are at variance to the
facts of the present petition. According to
him, there are several petitioners who have
crossed the age of 40 years, which was the
maximum age limit prescribed in the PET
advertisement and as such according to
him, in case the age relaxation on account
of the past services rendered by them as per
rule 10 of the service rules, 2018 would had
been made available to them in the
impugned advertisement dated 25.05.2021,
these petitioner's very well would had
participated in the said PET. It is the
submission of the Ld. Counsel that these
petitioners were not allowed to submit their
application form in pursuance to the said
advertisement, which was in violation of
the service rules, 2018. The Ld. Counsel in
his written submission has tried to
substantiate the
aforesaid ground by
submitting that even the commission has
admitted its error and as such a clarification
has been inserted in the advertisement
issued on 28.06.2022, wherein it has been
clarified under clause 6.3 that those
candidates, whose age stands lapsed can
also apply in the PET taking advantage of
the age relaxation available to them as per
the service rules, 2018. Thus, it is the
submission of the Ld. Counsel that the
impugned PET did not provide for the age
relaxation as is being provided in the
present PET advertisement, which clearly
shows that the impugned advertisement
was violative of the service rules, 2018.

10. On the other hand, the Ld.
Counsel for the respondent/Commission
submits that the PET in furtherance to the
impugned advertisement was conducted on
24.08.2021 and the results were declared
on 28.10.2021 and the score was valid for
one year. It is the specific stand of the Ld.
Counsel that the petitioner's, who have
consciously and knowingly chosen not to
appear for the PET examination, which was
widely published, cannot be permitted to
challenge the same at this belated stage
when
the
result
stood
declared
on
28.10.2021 and even the advertisement for
the main examination stood published as on
15.12.2021. The Ld. Counsel articulated his
argument on the basis that the validity of
holding the PET examination by the Uttar
11 All. Jyoti Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
835
Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection
Commission for selection on the post of
Health Worker (Female) stands settled by
various judgements of this court, including:

i. Judgment dated 04.02.2022 passed in
Writ A 96 of 2022 (Smt. Mridul and Others
V/s State of U.P & Ors.), which was upheld
vide order dated 09.03.2022 in Special
Appeal No. 74 of 2022.

ii. Judgment dated 07.05.2022 passed
in Special Appeal No. 332 of 2022 (Neetu
Singh and Others V/s State of U.P and
Others)

iii. Judgment dated 29.04.2022 passed
in Writ A 2460 of 2022 (Vijay Laxmi and
Others V/s State of U.P & Ors.), which was
upheld vide order dated 07.05.2022 in
Special Appeal No. 193 of 2022.

iv. Judgment dated 26.05.2022 passed
in Writ A 3079 of 2022 (Smt. Anju Devi &
171 Others V/s State of U.P & Ors.), which
was upheld vide order dated 09.06.2022 in
Special Appeal No. 300 of 2022.

11. This court is also in complete
agreement
with
the
reasoning
and
discussion given by the Ld. Single Judge
and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in Judgment dated 04.02.2022
passed in Writ A 96 of 2022 (Smt. Mridul
and Others V/s State of U.P & Ors.),
which was upheld vide order dated
09.03.2022 in Special Appeal No. 74 of
2022. Further, as far as the specific
argument of the Ld. Counsel of the
petitioner that his contention relating to
the relaxation of age in view of rule 10 of
the service rules, 2018 is concerned, this
court finds that this court in Judgment
dated 07.05.2022 in Special Appeal No.
193 of 2022 (Vijay Laxmi and Others V/s
State of U.P & Ors.), has already dealt
the said aspect vividly at paragraph 8,9
and 10 as follows:

"8. The appellant-petitioners had
assailed the Advertisement dated 25-05-
2021 and 15-12-2021 mainly on the ground
that the maximum age prescribed in the
Advertisement
violates
the
provision
contained in Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh
Medical, Health and Family Welfare
Department Health Workers and Health
Supervisor
(Male
and
Female)
nonGazetted, Service Rules, 2018 (hereinafter
referred to as "Rules of 2018"), which
provides as under:-

"A candidate for direct recruitment
must have attained the age of eighteen
years and must not have attained the age of
more than forty years on the first day of
July of the calendar year in which
vacancies for direct recruitment are
advertised: Provided that the upper age
limit in the case of candidates belonging to
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and such other categories as may be
notified by the Government from time to
time shall be greater by such number of
years as may be specified. Provided further
that the upper age limit for such candidates
who was 4 working as auxiliary Nurse
Midwife in the medical, Health and Family
Welfare Department, by the government,
Uttar Pradesh on contract basis and who
possess the qualification prescribed in the
rule-8(2) of these rule shall be greater by
such number of completed years of services
as they have rendered on contract basis
subject to be maximum of five years for
enabling them to become eligible for being
considered for direct recruitment."
9. The learned counsel for the appellantpetitioners contended that as per the
second Proviso appended to the aforesaid
Rule 10 of the Rules of 2018, Health
Worker (Female) are entitled to get a
relaxation in the upper age limit of the
number of completed years of service
rendered on contractual basis, upto the
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maximum of 5 years. He submitted that
paragraph-6 of the Advertisement dated
25-05-2021 provides that a candidate who
has completed the age of 40 years, will not
be eligible for appearing in PET and this
condition violates Rule 10 of the Rules of
2018.

10.
Rejecting
the
aforesaid
submission, the learned Single Judge held
that a perusal of Condition No. 6 of the
Advertisement reveals that it specifically
mentions that a candidate would be entitled
to get relaxation in the upper age limit as
per the Regulations / Government Orders
issued from time to time. It further clarifies
that a candidate, who has qualified the
PET, would be entitled to get relaxation in
the age limit as per the service Rules
applicable
to
the
concerned
post.
Therefore,
the
submission
of
the
Appellants-petitioners,
that
the
advertisement provides for the upper age
limit of 40 years which violates Rule 10 of
the Rules 2018, is unacceptable as
paragraph-6 of the Advertisement clearly
states that relaxation in upper age limit
would be admissible as per the relevant
service rules / Government Orders."

12. Thus, this court is of the
considered opinion that all the issues raised
by the petitioner stands decided by this
court in one matter or the other and the
issues raised are no longer res integra.
Moreover, this court cannot be oblivious of
the law of precedents, which forms the
foundation of administration of Justice and
it has been held time and again that a single
Judge of a High Court is ordinarily bound
to accept as correct judgments of Courts of
coordinate jurisdiction and of Division
Benches and of the Full Benches of his
Court. The reason of the rule which makes
a precedent binding lies in the desire to
secure uniformity and certainty in the law.
The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of
Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
and Ors., (2010)13SCC336, held that it
was neither desirable nor permissible by
the coordinate Bench to disapprove the
earlier judgment and take view contrary to
it. A coordinate bench cannot comment
upon the discretion exercised or judgment
rendered by another coordinate bench of
the same court. The rule of precedent is
binding for the reason that there is a desire
to secure uniformity and certainty in law. A
bench must follow the decision of a
coordinate bench and take the same view as
has been taken earlier. The earlier decision
of the coordinate bench is binding upon any
latter coordinate bench deciding the same
or similar issues. If the latter bench wants
to take a different view than that taken by
the earlier bench, the proper course is for it
to refer the matter to a larger bench.

13. To the same effect is the judgment
of the Apex Court reported in the State of
Punjab and another versus Devans
Modern Breweries ltd. and another,
(2004) 11 SCC 26, wherein paragraph 339
laid down the following: -

"339. Judicial discipline envisages
that a coordinate Bench follow the decision
of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a
coordinate Bench does not agree with the
principles of law enunciated by another
Bench, the matter may be referred only to a
Larger Bench. (See Pradip Chandra Parija
v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, (2002) 1 SCC
1 followed in Union of India Vs. Hansoli
Devi, (2002) 7 SCC 273. But no decision
can
be
arrived
at
contrary
to
or
inconsistent with the law laid down by the
coordinate Bench. Kalyani Stores (supra)
and K.K. Narula (supra) both have been
rendered by the Constitution Benches. The
11 All. Abhay Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
837
said decisions, therefore, cannot be thrown
out for any purpose whatsoever; more so
when both of them if applied collectively
lead to a contrary decision proposed by the
majority."

14. In view of the above, this court
does not find any merits in the present writ
petition and as such the same is accordingly
dismissed in the above terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 837
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR , J.

Writ-A No. 1842 of 2012

Abhay Nath Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amitabh Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Financial hand Book -Rule 54-A r/w
R.53(1) & (2)-claim for arrears of salary
denied-Petitioner
suspended
in
departmental proceedings-was dismissed -
challenged in Writ-Writ Petition allowedliberty for fresh inquiry-but no fresh inquiry
initiated-Petitioner
reinstated-arrears
of
salary for the period of dismissal deniedunreasonable and non speaking-Petitioner
entitled to 75 % of arrears of slaray with
interest of 6 % per annum. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs Madhusudan Prasad; (2004) 1 SCC
43

2. Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs
C. Muddaiah; (2007) 7 SCC 689

3. Kishori Lal Vs Chairman Board of Directors,
Aligarh Gramin Bank (Allahabad); 2011 (3) All LJ
73

4. Brajesh Kumar Shukla Vs St.of U.P. & ors.;
2019 (1) UPLBEC 798 / 2018 (6) All WC 6481

5. Yadunandan Singh Vs St.of U.P. & ors.; 2018
(1) UPLBEC 454 / 2018 (2) All WC 1594

6. Prayag Narain Dubey (P.N. Pandey) Vs
U.P.S.R.T.C. through Regional Manager & anr.;
2018 (8) ADJ 561.

7. Pradeep S/o Rajkumar Jain Vs Manganese
Ore (India) Limited & ors.; (2022) 3 SCC 683

8. Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors; (2013)
10 SCC 324

9. Gowramma C (Dead) By LR's Vs Manager
(Personnel) Hindustan Aeronautical Limited &
anr.; 2022 SCC Online SC 310 (Civil Appeal
Nos.1575-1576 of 2022)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri S.K. Gaur, Advocate
holding brief of Shri Amitabh Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the present writ
petition the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 25.08.2011, contained in
annexure no.1 to the writ petition, to the
extent it denies the arrears of salary for the
period w.e.f. 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009. The
petitioner has further prayed for a direction
to the opposite parties to pay the arrears of
salary for the said period in accordance
with Rule 54-A read with Rule 53(1) & (2)
of the Financial Hand Book, Vol.-II, Part-II