# Prem Pal Singh v. Additional Director of Education and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 810
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-25
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 414 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-pal-singh-v-additional-director-of-education-and-others-40007
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri M.K. Gupta
Sri B.B. Paul
Sri Nandlal Singh Yadav
Dr. R.G. Padia
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act- 1921-
Chapter III- Regulation- 55-61 read with
section 16- Transfer of Lecturer from one
aided institution to another - competent
authority granted permission by putting
condition concealment of fact, fraud if
found order can be revoked- in column
18
and
19
purposely
given
false
information that no requisition has been
send
to
the
board-
revocation
of
permission
held-
proper
needs
no
interference.

Held - Para 11

When particular information are solicited
in a prescribed proforma, it is presumed
that
only
correct
and
truthful
information are to be sent. If correct
information's
are
not
sent,
the
consideration of an issue on the basis of
incorrect information is likely to be
vitiated.

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
Service law- Natural justice- permission
for transfer of the appellant from one
Institution to another- granted pursuant
to the particulars found false- during
course of enquiry Appellant made protest
by several times- permission revoked-
Principle of natural justice not violated.

Held- para 15

Appellant was, thus, aware of the
enquiry and has also made his protest by
the aforesaid letter. However, in view of
the fact that the power of cancellation of
transfer was exercised by the Additional
Director of Education on the basis of
stipulation reserved in the transfer order
dated 30th June, 2001 that if any fact is
found incorrect the transfer may be
cancelled and further the Additional
Director of Education has not taken into
consideration any other material apart
from information given by petitioner in
the transfer application, we are not
persuaded to accept that there was any
violation of principle of natural justice in
passing
the
cancellation
order.
The
action was being taken on the basis of
information submitted by the appellant
in the transfer application which was
found to be untrue. Before the learned
Single Judge or before us, the appellant
has failed to prove that information
given in the transfer application in
columns no. 18 and 19 were correct
information. The observance of principle
of natural justice vary from fact situation
of each case. Thus, we are of the view
that order dated 24th November, 2001 is
not vitiated on account of the aforesaid
submission.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Prem Pal Singh V. Additional Director of Education and others 811
Case law discussed
AIR 1989 SC-997

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
preliminary issue. It has also rightly held
that the suit is barred by section 69 of the
Act.

19. The First Appeal From Order is
accordingly allowed and the order of the
appellate court is quashed and that of the
trial court is restored.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 414 of 2002

Prem Pal Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Director of Education and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri R.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.K. Gupta
Sri B.B. Paul
Sri Nandlal Singh Yadav
Dr. R.G. Padia
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act- 1921-
Chapter III- Regulation- 55-61 read with
section 16- Transfer of Lecturer from one
aided institution to another - competent
authority granted permission by putting
condition concealment of fact, fraud if
found order can be revoked- in column
18
and
19
purposely
given
false
information that no requisition has been
send
to
the
board-
revocation
of
permission
held-
proper
needs
no
interference.

Held - Para 11

When particular information are solicited
in a prescribed proforma, it is presumed
that
only
correct
and
truthful
information are to be sent. If correct
information's
are
not
sent,
the
consideration of an issue on the basis of
incorrect information is likely to be
vitiated.

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
Service law- Natural justice- permission
for transfer of the appellant from one
Institution to another- granted pursuant
to the particulars found false- during
course of enquiry Appellant made protest
by several times- permission revoked-
Principle of natural justice not violated.

Held- para 15

Appellant was, thus, aware of the
enquiry and has also made his protest by
the aforesaid letter. However, in view of
the fact that the power of cancellation of
transfer was exercised by the Additional
Director of Education on the basis of
stipulation reserved in the transfer order
dated 30th June, 2001 that if any fact is
found incorrect the transfer may be
cancelled and further the Additional
Director of Education has not taken into
consideration any other material apart
from information given by petitioner in
the transfer application, we are not
persuaded to accept that there was any
violation of principle of natural justice in
passing
the
cancellation
order.
The
action was being taken on the basis of
information submitted by the appellant
in the transfer application which was
found to be untrue. Before the learned
Single Judge or before us, the appellant
has failed to prove that information
given in the transfer application in
columns no. 18 and 19 were correct
information. The observance of principle
of natural justice vary from fact situation
of each case. Thus, we are of the view
that order dated 24th November, 2001 is
not vitiated on account of the aforesaid
submission.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Prem Pal Singh V. Additional Director of Education and others 811
Case law discussed
AIR 1989 SC-997

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

1. Heard Sri R.N. Singh, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri V.K. Singh,
Advocate for the appellant, Dr. R.G.
Padia, Senior Advocate appearing for
respondent no. 5 and learned Standing
counsel.

2. This special appeal has been filed
by the appellant challenging the judgment
and order dated 10th April, 2002 of
learned single Judge in Writ petition no.
40150 of 2001 by which the writ petition
filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. Facts giving rise to this appeal,
briefly stated, are appellant has been
selected by U.P. Secondary Education
Service
Selection
Board,
Allahabad
(hereinafter referred to as the Board) for
the post of Principal in Budhsen Prem
Chandra Inter College, Bulandshahr,
where he joined on 22nd February, 1999
and was subsequently confirmed. Gopi
Ram Paliwal Inter College, Aligarh
(hereinafter referred to as College) is a
recognized institution where the post of
principal fell vacant on 30th June, 1989
due to retirement of principal. The
requisition of the post of principal of the
college was sent to the Board for filling
the post by direct recruitment. The Board
published the vacancy of principal of the
college on 26th December, 1995 but
selection
could
not
take
place
in
pursuance of the said advertisement.
Subsequently again the Board published
the vacancy which was published in the
newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 14th August,
1998. Various persons held the post of
principal on adhoc basis up to 30th June
2001 when the last incumbent, Sri
Devendra
Singh
retired.
The
advertisement made in the year 1998 was
challenged by the then adhoc principal,
Sri B.K. Paliwal, by filing a writ petition
in this court. Devendra Singh who lastly
held the post on adhoc basis has also filed
writ
petition
no.
44128
of
1999
challenging the advertisement made in the
year 1998 which petition was dismissed
by this Court in February, 2001.

4. The appellant who was working at
Bulandshahr made an application for his
transfer to the college in February, 2001.
The committee of management of both
the
colleges
also
passed
resolution
showing
their
concurrence
to
the
proposed transfer. The application of
transfer was made in prescribed proforma
in
accordance
with
provisions
of
Regulations 55 to 61 of Chapter-III of
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
On the said application, an order was
passed
by
Additional
Director
of
Education
dated
30th
June,
2001
transferring the petitioner from Budhsen
Prem Chandra Inter College, Bulandshahr
to the college. The transfer order also
contemplated that if it comes into light
that
concerned
principal/regional
authorities have obtained transfer by
concealment
of
any
fact
then
the
Directorate will be free to cancel the
transfer order. Mahendra Singh who was
senior most lecturer of the college filed a
writ petition in this Court challenging the
said transfer order dated 30th June, 2001
and also filed complaint before the
education authorities. After receiving the
complaint from Mahendra Singh, the
Additional Director of Schools and
Deputy Director of Education submitted
their reports to the Additional Director of
Education. The District Inspector of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
Schools in his report dated 19.9.2001
stated that requisition for vacant post of
principal was sent in the year 1989 to the
Secretary of the Board and the post was
advertised by the Board in the year 199596. Again the post was advertised by the
Board on 14th August, 1998. It was stated
that from 1989 to 30th June, 2001 various
senior teachers functioned as principal in
pursuance of the interim order granted by
the High Court. The appellant also wrote
letter to the District Inspector of Schools
praying that no action be taken in the
matter with regard to transfer of the
appellant. The District Inspector of
Schools also wrote a letter to the Manager
of the college asking report with regard to
complaint made by Mahendra Singh
against the transfer dated 30th June, 2001.
The Manager submitted a reply to the
letter of the District Inspector of Schools.
The Additional Director of Education
after receiving the various reports passed
the order dated 24th November, 2001
cancelling the order dated 30th June, 2001
transferring the petitioner in the college. It
was stated in the letter that after enquiry it
has come to notice that the said transfer
was obtained by concealment of facts, the
requisition for the post of principal of the
college was sent to the Board but in the
transfer application it was mentioned that
no requisition has been sent to the Board.
In view of the above, the transfer order
was cancelled. The appellant filed writ
petition challenging the aforesaid order
dated 24th November, 2001. The writ
petition has been dismissed by learned
single Judge vide its judgment dated 10th
April, 2002 against which present special
appeal has been filed.

5. Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate,
appearing for the appellant in support of
this
appeal
has
raised
following
submissions :-

(i) The fact that requisition for the post
of principal was sent to the Board and the
post was advertised by the Board was not
an impediment in transfer of the appellant
and the aforesaid fact was not relevant
fact for cancellation of transfer of the
appellant. Sri R.N. Singh has placed
reliance on three judgments of learned
single Judges of this Court for the
aforesaid preposition, namely, judgment
dated 18th April, 1996 in Writ Petition
No. 12037 of 1996 (Smt. Puspha
Sharma vs. Director of Education and
others), judgment dated 22nd April, 1996
in Writ Petition No. 14248 of 1996
(Darshan Singh vs. State of U.P. and
others)
and
2002(1)
E.S.C.
214;
Narendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and
others.

(ii) In the transfer application, which was
filed seeking transfer, it was not the
appellant who concealed any fact and
even if any fact was concealed, it was by
the Management for which appellant
cannot be held guilty. Further there was
no concealment in column 19 of the
transfer application.

(iii) Even though appellant was not
entitled for oral hearing before the
authorities, he was entitled for notice and
opportunity before cancelling his transfer.
The counsel contended that appellant's
submission was not to the effect that he
was entitled for oral hearing.

6. Dr. R.G. Padia, Senior Advocate
appearing for respondent no. 5 contended
that transfer order dated 30th June, 2001
having been obtained by concealment of
facts, the same was rightly cancelled by
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Prem Pal Singh V. Additional Director of Education and others 813
Additional Director of Education. Dr.
Padia submitted that since the order of
cancellation
was
passed
on
the
information
submitted
by
appellant
himself, hence there was no occasion to
give any opportunity of hearing to the
appellant before passing the order of
cancellation. It was contended that there
was clear concealment of fact in the
transfer application which was duly
signed by the appellant himself and the
appellant cannot be heard in saying that
he never concealed a fact. In the facts of
the present case, no opportunity of
hearing was required to be given to the
appellant.

7. The first and second submission
being interrelated, are being considered
together. The submission of Sri R.N.
Singh, Senior Advocate is that transfer of
a principal is fully permissible even if
post of principal has been advertised by
the Board and for this submission he has
placed reliance on three judgments of this
Court as referred above. Sri R.N. Singh
very fairly stated that judgment of this
Court in Narendra Kumar's case (supra)
has been referred to Larger Bench by
another Hon'ble Single Judge of this
Court which is pending consideration.
From the submissions made before the
learned single Judge in the writ petition, it
appears that counsel for respondents
proceeded with the assumption that even
though advertisement of vacancy by the
Board may not be an impediment in
filling the post by transfer but transfer can
be cancelled if it was obtained by
concealment of fact. Thus it appears that
submission raised by counsel for the
appellant in this appeal that transfer is
permissible even if post has been
advertised by the Board has not been
seriously challenged. In view of this, we
are not inclined to enter into or decide the
question as to whether advertisement of
vacancy by the Board puts any fetter on
filing of the post by transfer. Further this
appeal can be decided on other questions
involved
in
the
appeal.
Now
the
submission of counsel for the appellant
that information regarding requisition of
vacancy to the commission was not
relevant fact nor its non disclosure in the
transfer application will have any effect
and the order of cancellation founded on
this ground cannot be sustained is to be
examined. The transfer order dated 30th
June, 2001 contains a clear stipulation to
the effect,

";fn lacaf/kr iz/kkuk/;kid@iz/kkukpk;Z {ks=h;
vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk dksbZ rF; fNikdj LFkkukUrj.k
djus dh ckr izdk'k esa vk;h rks funs'kky; bl
LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dks fujLr djus gsrq iw.kZ Lora=
gksxk A"

8. Copy the transfer application is
on the record as Annexure CA-7 to the
counter affidavit of Mahendra Singh. The
transfer application is in prescribed
proforma, which contain various columns
requiring giving of various details for
purposes of considering the application of
transfer. The various columns of the
transfer application solicit various kind of
information for purposes of effectively
considering the transfer application. The
provisions
of
Section
16
of
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission and Selection Boards Act,
1982 provides as under :-

"16. Appointment to be made only
on the recommendation of the Board-(1)
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in the Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 or the regulations made
thereunder but subject to the provisions
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
21-B, 21-C, 21-D, 33, 33-A and 33-B,
every appointment of a teacher, shall, on
or after the date of commencement of the
Uttar
Pradesh
Secondary
Education
Service
(Commission
and
Selection
Boards (Amendment) Act, 1992, be made
by
the
management
only
on
the
recommendation of the Board.
Provided
that
in
respect
of
retrenched employees, the provisions of
Section 16- Executive Engineer of the
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall
mutates mutandis apply.

Provided
further
that
the
appointment of a teacher by transfer from
one Institutiion to another, may be made
in accordance with the regulations made
under clause © of sub-section (2) of
Section
16-g
of
the
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921.
(2)
Any
appointment
made
in
contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be void.

9. The second proviso to Section 16
only provides that appointment of a
teacher by transfer from one institution to
another may be made in accordance with
regulations made under clause (c) of sub
section (2) of Section 16-G of U.P.
Intermediate Education Act. Regulations
55 to 61 are the regulations framed under
section 16-G as well as Regulations 55 to
61 only provide that post can be filled up
by transfer. Provisions of Section 16 as
well as aforesaid regulations do not give
any right in a teacher to claim transfer
except that he can apply for transfer.
Transfer can be sought by a teacher in
accordance with regulation but the said
transfer
can
be
effected
only
on
recommendation of committee referred in
Regulation 59. Regulations 55 to 61 do
not expressly provide the criteria on
which transfer application is to be
considered except certain grounds in
which transfer can not be made. For
example, Regulation 61 sub clause (2)
provides that transfer is permissible to
only from one aided institution to another
aided institution .and from one unaided
institution to another unaided institution.
If a teacher gives an application for
transfer from one unaided institution to
an aided institution, the application is
liable to be rejected. Further regulation 55
provides that L.T. grade teacher can be
transferred even outside the region. The
various columns in prescribed proforma
of transfer seek required information for
effectively considering the application of
transfer of a teacher. In the counter
affidavit of respondent no. 5 two letters of
Secretary of the Board have been
enclosed as Annexure CA-3 and 4.
Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit is
letter dated 26th June, 1999 Secretary of
the Board of Additional Director of
Education,
Directorate
at
Allahabad
which states that Secretary has been
directed to state that no objection from
selection Board be obtained before
effecting proceeding of transfer with
regard to those posts of Principal which
have been advertised by the Board.
Another letter Annexure CA-4 to the
counter affidavit is letter dated 30th April,
2001 of Secretary of the Board which is
again on the same subject regarding
obtaining of no objection certificate
regarding post of principal, lecturer and
L.T. grade teachers. The letter states that
as far as possible after sending requisition
for a post transfer be not made and the if
any unavoidable circumstances transfer is
to be made then permission of Board be
taken. The Secretary of the Board having
informed the Additional Director of
Education by the aforesaid letter seeking
no objection, it appears that the column in
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Prem Pal Singh V. Additional Director of Education and others 815
the transfer application to the effect that
as to whether the requisition of the post
has been sent to the Selection Board is in
accordance with the aforesaid letter. In
view of the above, it cannot be said that
column no. 19 in the transfer application
which requires an information as to
whether the requisition has been sent to
the Commission is not a relevant
information. As observed above, we have
not entered into and are not deciding the
question as to whether after requisition
the transfer can be made or not made
since in this appeal, the counsel for
respondents
has
proceeded
on
the
premises that transfer can be made even
after sending of the requisition and
advertisement of the vacancy. Thus the
column no. 19 cannot be said to be
irrelevant for considering the claim of
transfer of a teacher. Now looking to
column nos. 18 and 19 of the transfer
application, it is not disputed that against
the said columns it was mentioned that
requisition has not been sent. Sri R.N.
Singh, Senior Advocate tried to explain
the aforesaid column no. 19 by saying that
since
the
management
was
under
impression that vacancy has arisen on
30th June, 2001 by retirement of adhoc
principal
and
since
thereafter
no
requisition was sent, the said information
was given by the Manager. When
particular information are solicited in a
prescribed proforma, it is presumed that
only correct and truthful information are
to be sent. If correct information are not
sent, the consideration of an issue on the
basis of incorrect information is likely to
be vitiated. It is not disputed that Sri
Devendra Singh who retired on 30th June,
2001 was only an Adhoc principal and by
retirement
of
adhoc
principal
the
substantive vacancy do not arise. The
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Commission
and
Selection
Service
Boards Rules, 1998, Section 2 (e) defines
vacancy as follows :-

"2 (e) Vacancy means a vacancy
arising out as a result of death, retirement
regarding dismissal or removal of a
teacher or creation of new post or
appointment
or
promotion
of
the
incumbent to any higher post in a
substantive capacity."

10. Vacancy thus will arise only
when a teacher holding the post in
substantive capacity retires. In the present
case, it has not been disputed that
substantive vacancy arorse on the post of
Principal in the year 1989, thus the
relevant column which required the
reason of vacancy and the date meant
cause of vacancy and the date. Thus
information in column no. 18 which
pertain to cause and date of vacancy
against which 30th June, 2001 was filled
and information in column no. 19 were
incorrect. There is no denial that the said
prescribed proforma has been signed by
the appellant. Prem Pal Singh on
14.2.2001. According to Regulation 55,
the process of transfer starts by making
application by a teacher. Application will
initiate
only
through

the
teacher
concerned. Thus all information which are
given in the application has to be
basically
imputed
to
the
teacher
concerned. There is no force in the
submission of counsel for the appellant
that the aforesaid information were given
by the Management for which appellant
cannot
be
held
responsible.
Under
Regulation 55, it is the teacher concerned
who can seek transfer, hence all the
information is to be imputed to the
teacher concerned and he is responsible
for the same.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
11. We have found that there was
concealment of information regarding
date of the vacancy and the concealment
of fact that requisition was already sent of
the vacancy of the post of principal in the
transfer application, which were facts
relevant for consideration of transfer. We
have already noted that transfer order
dated 30th June, 2001 clearly stipulated
that if any information given in the
transfer application is found to be
incorrect, the Directorate is free to cancel
the said transfer. In view of the aforesaid ,
the authorities were fully entitled to
invoke the aforesaid clause in the transfer
order and cancel the transfer order when
they found that relevant information were
concealed in the transfer application.

12. The question as to on what
ground an administrative order can be
cancelled has engaged attention of this
Court and Apex Court in several cases.
The order approving the transfer of the
appellant is an administrative order
passed in exercise of jurisdiction given to
competent authority under section 16 of
U.P. Act No. V of 1982 as well as
Regulations 55 to 61 of Chapter III of
Regulations
framed
under
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The
Apex Court had occasion to consider the
question as to on what ground permission
granted under Section 15 of U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973 can
be cancelled. The Apex Court in State of
U.P.
and
others
vs.
Maharaja
Dharmander Prasad Singh etc., AIR
1989 SC 997 held in paragraph 23 B as
under :

"23 B. Indeed, the submissions of Sri
Thakur on the point contemplate the
exercise of the power to cancel or revoke
the permission in three distinct situations.
The first is where the grant is itself
vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation on
the part of the grantee at the time of
obtaining the grant. To the second
situation belong the class of cases where
the grantee, after the grant violates the
essential terms and conditions subject to
which the grant is made. In these two
areas, the power to grant must be held to
include the power to revoke or cancel the
permit, even in the absence of any other
express statutory provisions in that
behalf."

13.

The
cancellation
of
administrative order, which was passed on
concealment of relevant facts, has always
been connected to with the authority.
Furthermore, in the present case in the
order dated 30th June, 2001 there was
clear stipulation that in the event of any
fact being found to be incorrect, the
authorities have right to cancel the order.

14. From the aforesaid discussions,
it is clear that the information regarding
requisition of vacancy to the Board was
relevant
information,
which
was
concealed in the transfer application. No
error was committed by the authorities in
cancelling the said transfer on the
aforesaid ground. The transfer order itself
reserved the right with the authorities to
cancel the same if it was obtained by
concealment of any fact. Thus we do not
find any error in the order cancelling the
transfer. Learned single Judge in his
judgement has found that it was a clear
case of giving incorrect information. We
are of the considered opinion that learned
single Judge rightly decided the issues
and no error was committed by the
learned single Judge in holding that
correct information was concealed by the
petitioner
(appellant).
----------------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Sanjay Bhatia and another V. State of U.P. and others 817
15. The last submission of the
counsel for the appellant is with regard to
violation of principle of natural justice.
The counsel for the appellant contended
that even though oral hearing was not
required but the petitioner (appellant) was
entitled for notice before cancellation.
From the facts brought on the record of
the writ petition, it appears that after filing
of the complaint by respondent no. 5
reports were called by Additional Director
of
Education
from
the
education
authorities. The District Inspector of
Schools has also called for report from the
management of the college to which
management
has
also
replied.
The
appellant was also fully aware of the
complaint and the enquiry which was
going on the aforesaid complaint. This
fact is proved from the letter of the
appellant himself dated 8th September,
2001 copy of which has been annexed as
Annexure CA-II to the counter affidavit
of respondent no. 5. The appellant wrote
to the District Inspector of Schools on 8th
September, 2001. The aforesaid letter also
takes notice of the fact that respondent no.
5 has sent complaint dated 17th August,
2001 to the Additional Director of
Education. In the letter, the appellant also
refuted the grounds mentioned in the
complaint of Mahendra Singh and has
stated that his transfer has been made
after following the procedure prescribed.
The appellant was, thus, aware of the
enquiry and has also made his protest by
the aforesaid letter. However, in view of
the fact that the power of cancellation of
transfer was exercised by the Additional
Director of Education on the basis of
stipulation reserved in the transfer order
dated 30th June, 2001 that if any fact is
found incorrect the transfer may be
cancelled and further the Additional
Director of Education has not taken into
consideration any other material apart
from information given by petitioner in
the transfer application, we are not
persuaded to accept that there was any
violation of principle of natural justice in
passing the cancellation order. The action
was being taken on the basis of
information submitted by the appellant in
the transfer application which was found
to be untrue. Before the learned single
Judge or before us, the appellant has
failed to prove that information given in
the transfer application in Columns no. 18
and 19 were correct information. The
observance of principal of natural justice
vary from fact situation of each case.
Thus, we are of the view that order dated
24th November, 2001 is not vitiated on
account of the aforesaid submission.

16. In view of what has been said
above, we do not find any substance in
any of the submissions of counsel for the
appellant. No error has been committed
by the learned single Judge in dismissing
the writ petition of the appellant.

17. This special appeal has no merit
and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD SEP. 26, 2002.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40307 of 2001

Sanjay Bhatia and another ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Sri Govind Kumar Singh