# Purnamasi v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 45 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-01-29 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4475 of 2010 - **Bench:** A.P. Sahi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/purnamasi-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41501 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-Application to summon the record of cross case U/S 307, 120-B, 167, 218, 220, 342, 147, 148, 149, 323,504 IPC- Rejection by Trial Court- held proper order passed by magistrate u/s 156(3) to register and investigate the case- Stayed by High Court- neither Charge sheet, nor FIR nor Summoning order in existence No existence of Cross Case Rejection- held proper. Held: Para 10 Principles laid down in all these decisions are that whenever cross case is pending, both cases should be tried together. No doubt, it is settled principle of law. I am in full agreement that cross case should be tried together. But in the instant case taking into consideration that only an order was passed by Magistrate to register and investigate the matter, which has been stayed by this Court as far back as in year 2006, there is no cross case in existence at present. Therefore, application has rightly been rejected by Additional Sessions Judge. No good ground for interference is made out. The instant revision lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Case Law Discussed- 1994(23) AIR page 296, 2006 INDLAW SC 1253, 2000(40) ACC (SC) 783, 2001(42) ACC (SC)479, 2000(40) ACC (SC) 149, 2003 (46) ACC(SC) 881, 2008 (63) ACC 71. ## Text 1 All] Purnamasi V. State of U.P. and another 45 to the Commission hence the date when the vacancy arose would be the relevant date for the purposes of Rule 4(ii). Merely because of a subsequent event, if another teacher becomes the senior most teacher in the college, he does not have a right to ask the manager to send his name also. If the interpretation is not taken then the result will be the process of selection by the Commission will never be completed as the name of the senior most teachers would on changing and the process of forwarding names will also continue. This does not take away the right of the said teacher to be considered for the post of Principal of the Institution if he has applied for the same. In the circumstances so far as this petition is concerned, we do not find any merit in the same. The petition is accordingly dismissed." 10. Since rule 11(2)(b) of 1988 Rules is worded similarly, what has been interpreted by the Division Bench in Nand Kishore Prasad's case (supra), in my view, it would apply to the interpretation of rule 11(2)(b) of 1988 Rules and is consistent to the view I have taken and I stand fortified from the aforesaid Division Bench Judgement. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not place anything before to persuade me to take a different view. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that if by the time the selection is made one or both the senior most teachers retire, then the consideration of the next one or two senior most teachers would be contrary to the scheme of the Rules. Only such teachers are to be considered whose names are sent along with requisition under Rule 1(a) 12. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4475 of 2010 Purnamasi ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Awdhesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Constitution of India-Art. 226-Correction of date of birth-on basis of Horoscopeadmittedly petitioner passed High School- date of birth recorded on basis of High School certificate cannot be altered. Held: Para-3 In a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Mohan Lal Sharma reported in 2002(7) SCC Page 719 has rejected such a contention founded on a horoscope as against a matriculation certificate. Case law discussed- 2002(7) SCC Page 719. (Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.) 1. The petitioner is claiming correction of his date of birth on the basis of a horoscope. 2. There is no provision under law so as to raise a conclusive foregone presumption in favour of the petitioner in respect of the date of birth as indicated in 46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 the horoscope. For this the petitioner will have to lead evidence in a suit to be filed before the court of competent civil jurisdiction. The petitioner is educationally qualified and was working as a Collection Amin. He has passed his matriculation in 1969 where his date of birth recorded is 31.1.50. The date of birth as reflected in the horoscope is 31.12.52. 3. In a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Mohan Lal Sharma reported in 2002(7) SCC Page 719 has rejected such a contention founded on a horoscope as against a matriculation certificate. 4. This writ petition therefore cannot be entertained. 5. It is accordingly dismissed. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. Criminal Revision No. 5458 of 2009 Deepak Alias Pappu Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.K. Dubey Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate Code of Criminal Procedure-Application to summon the record of cross case U/S 307, 120-B, 167, 218, 220, 342, 147, 148, 149, 323,504 IPC- Rejection by Trial Court- held proper order passed by magistrate u/s 156(3) to register and investigate the case- Stayed by High Court- neither Charge sheet, nor FIR nor Summoning order in existence No existence of Cross Case Rejection- held proper. Held: Para 10 Principles laid down in all these decisions are that whenever cross case is pending, both cases should be tried together. No doubt, it is settled principle of law. I am in full agreement that cross case should be tried together. But in the instant case taking into consideration that only an order was passed by Magistrate to register and investigate the matter, which has been stayed by this Court as far back as in year 2006, there is no cross case in existence at present. Therefore, application has rightly been rejected by Additional Sessions Judge. No good ground for interference is made out. The instant revision lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Case Law Discussed- 1994(23) AIR page 296, 2006 INDLAW SC 1253, 2000(40) ACC (SC) 783, 2001(42) ACC (SC)479, 2000(40) ACC (SC) 149, 2003 (46) ACC(SC) 881, 2008 (63) ACC 71. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant revision is preferred against order dated 28.10.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. 3rd, Jaunpur, in Session Trial No.290 of 2005 arising out of case crime no.302 of 2005 under Section 307 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Jaunpur, District Jaunpur. 3. Grievance of revisionist is that an application was moved before Additional Sessions Judge with a prayer to summon