# Mohan Lal and others v. U.P. Co-operative Institutional Services Board and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 287
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29857 of 1999
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohan-lal-and-others-v-u-p-co-operative-institutional-services-board-and-others-40870
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Principle
of
Natural
Justice-cancellation
of
selection
including
appointmentpetitioner were appointed on class IV
post-in
District
Cooperative
Bankcancellation by Secretary/G.M. on the
ground
the
appointment
were
not
transparent most of them found relative
of the officers-termination order-can not
be raised-who itself the result of fraudnot interfered.

Held: Para 8

In the present case the impugned letter
reveals that undoubtedly a fraud has
been
committed
in
the process
of
selection and the appointment of the
petitioners,.
Therefore
any
technical
infringement
or
nonobservance
of
principles of natural justice can not
deflect the course of justice. In S.L.
Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Ors. AIR 1981
SC 136, it has been held that where from
admitted and undisputed fact, only one
conclusion is possible and under the law
only one course is permissible to be
adopted, the court should not enforce
the observance of the principles of
natural justice, as it would amount to
giving premium to unscrupulous persons
by getting a futile writ issued.
1994 UPLBEC-129
AIR 1992 SC-1555
1992 AWC 780
AIR 1981 SC-136
1990 (3) SCC-655
2004 (2) UPLBEC-1473

## Text

1 All] Jai Prakash V. State of U.P. and others
287
covered in different categories existing on
July 31, 1983 would be filled in
accordance with the procedure which was
in vogue before August 1, 1983."

13. Applying the principle laid down
in the aforesaid case to the facts of the
present case, we find that the process of
selection for direct recruitment had started
by sending the requisition on 15.4.1996
much before the date when the petitioner
became eligible for promotion. Thus, the
principle that any prejudice had been
caused to the petitioner cannot be
accepted.

14. In view of the foregoing
discussions, we do not find any merit in
the petition. It is dismissed with costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29857 of 1999

Mohan Lal and others ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Co-operative Institutional Services
Board and others
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri K.N. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Goel
Sri Raj Kumar
Sri V.K. Shukla
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Principle
of
Natural
Justice-cancellation
of
selection
including
appointmentpetitioner were appointed on class IV
post-in
District
Cooperative
Bankcancellation by Secretary/G.M. on the
ground
the
appointment
were
not
transparent most of them found relative
of the officers-termination order-can not
be raised-who itself the result of fraudnot interfered.

Held: Para 8

In the present case the impugned letter
reveals that undoubtedly a fraud has
been
committed
in
the process
of
selection and the appointment of the
petitioners,.
Therefore
any
technical
infringement
or
nonobservance
of
principles of natural justice can not
deflect the course of justice. In S.L.
Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Ors. AIR 1981
SC 136, it has been held that where from
admitted and undisputed fact, only one
conclusion is possible and under the law
only one course is permissible to be
adopted, the court should not enforce
the observance of the principles of
natural justice, as it would amount to
giving premium to unscrupulous persons
by getting a futile writ issued.
1994 UPLBEC-129
AIR 1992 SC-1555
1992 AWC 780
AIR 1981 SC-136
1990 (3) SCC-655
2004 (2) UPLBEC-1473

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. All the four petitioners were
appointed on Group-IV posts in the
District Co-operative Bank, Meerut under
the order dated 15.5.1999 issued by the
Secretary/ General Manager, District Cooperative
Bank,
Meerut.
However
Respondent No. 2- Addl. Registrar
(Banking) co-operative Societies U.P.
Lucknow vide letter dated 8th July 1999
directed the Secretary/ General Manager,
District co-operative Bank Limited to
immediately cancel all the appointments
made on the Group IV posts including
that of the petitioners, as the selection and
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
the appointments were not transparent and
regular and all the candidates selected and
appointed were related to some officers.
This letter of respondent No. 2 has been
challenged by the petitioner by means of
the present writ petition and it has been
prayed that the the working of the
petitioners may not be disturbed.

2. The contention of the petitioner is
that that the petitioners were appointed
following the procedure prescribed under
the
U.P.
Co-operative
Societies
Employees Services Regulations 1975
(hereinafter referred to as Regulations).
The posts were duly advertised in the
local daily newspaper 'Heera Times' dated
7.4.1999 and applications were also
invited from the Employment Exchange.
On
28.4.1999
the
duly
constituted
Selection Committee issued the select list
in which the names of the petitioner were
also included. The said selection list was
approved by the Secretary U.P. Cooperative Institutional Services Board,
Lucknow- respondent No. 1 vide letter
dated 13.5.1999. Thereafter the order of
appointment dated 15.5.1999 was issued
and the appointments of the petitioners
were made.

3. Sri K.N. Misra, learned counsel
for the petitioner argued that the services
of the petitioner can not be terminated
without approval of the respondent No. 1
as provided under Regulation 87 of the
Regulations more particularly without
notice or affording opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners.

4. Sri V.K. Goel, learned counsel for
Respondent No. 1 and Sri V.K. Shukla
appearing for respondent No. 4 submitted
that this is not a case were any
punishment
as
provided
under
the
Regulations has been imposed upon the
petitioners and they have been ordered to
be removed from service by way of
punishment. The impugned letter has been
issued to cancel the appointments of the
petitioners as they have been unlawfully
appointed. All the candidates in the select
list from which the petitioners have been
appointed were relatives and favourites of
the members of the Selection committee.
The Selection Committee prepared the
Select list without advertising the post
properly in newspapers having wide
circulation. The local daily newspaper
Heera Times is not a widely circulated
newspaper of any standard. The notice
was placed on the notice board on
12.4.1999 fixing last day for submitting
application as 16.4.1999 and therefore
only four days time was given to the
applicants
to
apply.
None
of
the
candidates
recommended
by
the
Employment Exchange were selected.
The relationship of each of the selected
candidate with some officer of the Bank
has also been described in the counter
affidavit. Thus it has been argued that the
procedure adopted for the appointment of
the petitioners was not transparent and
they
were
unlawfully
appointed.
Accordingly the respondent No. 2 has
committed
no
illegality
in
issuing
direction
for
cancelling
their
appointments. It has also been argued that
in the above circumstances, since fraud
was played in getting the appointments,
therefore, no notice or opportunity of
hearing is necessary before cancelling all
the appointments. Lastly it has been
submitted that the writ petition is
premature, as on the basis of the
impugned letter the appointments of the
petitioners have not been canceled.
1 All] Mohan Lal and other V. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board and others
289
A perusal of the impugned letter
reveals that it only directs the Appointing
Authority to cancel the appointments of
the category IV employees who have been
appointed as according to the preliminary
Enquiry made by the office of the
Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut it
transpired that the selection was not
transparent and the appointments were
made
unlawfully
on
the
basis
of
favouritism. It is not an order terminating
the services of the petitioner. There is no
order pursuant to the above letter by
which the services of the petitioners can
be
said
to
have
been
terminated.
Therefore, the said order would not
amount to order of punishment pursuant
to any disciplinary proceeding imposing
any penalty upon the petitioners and as
such would not be an order which would
require
prior
concurrence
of
the
respondent No. 1 as contemplated by
regulation 87. Thus, the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned letter is unsustainable as no
prior approval of the respondent No. 1 has
been taken, is misconceived and has no
merit. It is therefore fails.

5. The two authorities 1994
UPLBEC 129 Munne Khan Pathan Vs.
Jalaun
District
Co-operative
Bank
Limited and 1992 AWC 780 Shekh
Abdul Kalam Azad Vs. B.M. Bohra,
Managing Director/ Chairman, U.P. Cooperative spinning Mill and others cited
by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
support of his contention that the services
of the petitioner cannot be terminated
without the prior concurrence of the
respondent No. 1 are of no help to him in
so far as the services of the petitioners
have not been terminated by way of
punishment
under
the
Regulations.
Secondly, the direction to cancel the
appointment of the petitioners is not an
order of punishment as contemplated
under the regulations and therefore
regulation 87 of the regulations does not
come into ply at all.

6. The next submission that the
appointments of the petitioners cannot be
cancelled without giving them notice or
opportunity of hearing is also of no force.
First for the reason that so far there is no
order
cancelling
the
appointment.
Moreover, where fraud has been detected
in the matter of appointment such
appointment can not be sustained in the
eyes of law, as fraud vitiates even the
most solemn proceedings in any civilized
system of jurisprudence vide AIR 1992
Supreme Court 1555 Smt. Shrishti
Dhawan Vs. M/S Shaw Bros. It is a
cardinal principal of law that fraud and
justice never dwell together and therefore
the petitioners who have invoked the
discretionary jurisdiction of the Court
must have come before the Court not only
with clean hands but with clean mind and
clean heart. They should not expect the
court to promote their malafide intention
by upholding their appointments so as to
allow fraud to perpetuate. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in District Collector &
Chairman Vizianagram Social Welfare
Residential
School
Society
Vs.
M.
Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655
has observed as under:-

"If
by
committing
fraud
any
employment is obtained, the same cannot
be permitted to be countenanced by a
Court of Law as the employment secured
by fraud renders it voidable at the option
of the employer."
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
7. The above view has been
followed regularly by the Supreme Court
and the other Courts in quick succession.

8. In the present case the impugned
letter reveals that undoubtedly a fraud has
been committed in the process of
selection and the appointment of the
petitioners,.
Therefore
any
technical
infringement
or
nonobservance
of
principles of natural justice can not
deflect the course of justice. In S.L.
Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Ors. AIR
1981 SC 136, it has been held that where
from admitted and undisputed fact, only
one conclusion is possible and under the
law only one course is permissible to be
adopted, the court should not enforce the
observance of the principles of natural
justice, as it would amount to giving
premium to unscrupulous persons by
getting a futile writ issued.

9. The aim of following the
principles of natural justice is to secure
justice
and
not
to
perpetuate
any
illegality.

10.

In
the
present
set
of
circumstances
the
observance
of
principles of natural justice is not at all
warranted when the conclusion, even if
the petitioners were afforded opportunity
of hearing, would not have been different.
Besides, the entire selection has been
found to be stinking therefore,individual
innocence has no priority.

11. Sri V. K. Goel in support of his
argument has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of the
Alld. High Court (2004) 2 U.P.LBEC
1473 Arvind Kumar Pipal and others Vs.
Commissioner,
Trade
Tax,
U.P.,
Lucknow and others. In the said case
without giving individual notice to the
selected candidates the entire selection
process was cancelled. The court held that
where irregularities were found in the
selection process and the entire selection
had been cancelled neither notice nor
opportunity of hearing is necessary and no
individual notice was required to be given
to the selected candidates, as cancellation
was passed on valid reasons and the
Appointing Authority was within his
jurisdiction to cancel the appointments.
The above case law squarely applies to
the facts and circumstances of the present
case and therefore the argument that the
principles of natural justice have not been
followed falls to the ground.

12. In the last learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the impugned
letter is without jurisdiction the Addl.
Registrar
(Banking)
Co-operative
Societies, U.P. Lucknow has no authority
under law to issue such directions. Be as
it may be, it is pointless to go into the
controversy, as the Appointing Authority
is fully empowered under law to take
suitable action for cancellation of the
appointments, if it is found that the
appointments
were
obtained
by
misrepresentation, concealment of fact or
by
playing
fraud
irrespective
or
independent of the above letter.

13. In view of the above, the writ
petition lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
---------
1 All] Mohan Lal and other V. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board and others
291

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 30150 of 2000

Ram Prasad Kushwaha
...Petitioner
Versus
Vice Chancellor Bundelkhand University,
Jhansi and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prakash Padia
Sri R.P. Tiwari

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Cancellation of admission-admission to
persue the B.Ed. course-on the basis of
mark sheet of graduation from Bhartiya
Kshiksha Parishad-refusal to participate
in examination alongwith candidatureheld proper-but omission on the part of
university
resulted
wasting
precious
time of petition-direction to refused fee
of
Rs.5000/-
alongwith
damage
of
Rs.5000/- within one month.

Held: Para 11

For the lapse on the part of the
University
which
has
resulted
into
wasting of one year precious time of-his
-youth-in pursuing the course of study as
it was the duty of the University to deny
admission to the petitioner at the very
outset and in fact his form for admission
should not have been entertained, makes
the petitioner entitled to the refund of
fee viz., Rs.5000/- from the University.
Besides the aforesaid amount of fee, the
petitioner
is
also
entitled
to
the
damages, for compensating him for the
loss that he suffered, by pursing a
course, to which he was not entitled,
because of the mistake on the part of the
University in admitting him and allowing
him to carry on the studies for one year I
assess these damages, to the tune of
Rs.5000/-.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.)

1. By this petition Ram Prasad
Kushwaha claims recognition of the
degree of Bachelor of Programme (B.A.),
(one sitting), of the Bhartiya Shiksha
Parishad U.P. and consequently also the
prayer for declaration of the result of the
B.Ed. Examination conducted by the
Bundelkhand University for the academic
session 1997-98. It appears that the
petitioner swayed by the scheme of the
Govt. of India for providing Education
from Open Universities, applied for
admission in the aforesaid examination of
B.A. to the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad
Uttar Pradesh which is a registered body
under
the
provisions
of
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 for providing
education under the Open University
System. The petitioner completed his one
year course which is known as one sitting
course of Bachelor of Programme (B.A.)
in August, 1995. He was issued a mark
sheet which shows that Bhartiya Shiksha
Parishad U.P. conducted examination
under Open University System, the name
of which is Bachelor of Programme
(B.A.) in one sitting. The petitioner
succeeded in that examination.

2. After clearing the aforesaid
examination the petitioner applied for
admission in the B.Ed. Course of the
Bundelkhand
University
wherein
he
became successful in the test and was
required to deposit Rs.5000/- on 11.7.97