# R.C. Shukla v. State U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 235
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Bench:** S.K. Verma, S.K. Verma, A.N. Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/r-c-shukla-v-state-u-p-others-39392
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
235
or Addl. District Sessions Judge can grant bail. Thus the petitioner as
(Addl. District and Sessions Judge has committed gross
insubordination by granting bail once the bail had been rejected by
the High Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a
judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mohan Lal Vs.
State of U.P. and others 1995 J.I.C. 105 Crl. Misc. Bail Application
No.2087 of 1993 decided on 14.11.1994 where the learned Single
Judge Hon'ble S.K. Verma, J. has held that after the High Court
rejects bail on merits the Sessions Judge can entertain the bail
application and can grant it. We do not at all agree with this view.
Such a view will be totally subversive of judicial discipline. After the
High Court rejects bail on merits the Sessions Judge cannot grant
bail. Hence we over-rule the view of Hon'ble S.K. Verma, J.

4. The petitioner has been found guilty in the enquiry report
of Hon'ble A.N. Gupta, J. and the finding of guilt is a finding of fact
and this court cannot interfere with findings of fact. The petition is
hence dismissed.

5. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated by the Registrar
of this Court to the all District and Sessions Judges and Addl.
District and Sessions Judge of the State so that they may know the
law on this point that once the High Court rejects bail the
subordinate judiciary cannot grant bail and it will be treated as a
serious misconduct if they do so.

Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7( $//$+$%$'
'$7( $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( $ . <2*
7+( +21·%/( $ . <2* -
-
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

/DOLW .XPDU *DUJ
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 83 %RDUG RI +LJK 6FKRRO DQG ,QWHUPHGLDWH $OODKDEDG
7KURXJK LWV 6HFUHWDU\ DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

1999
------
August, 21
1999
------
R.C. Shukla
 Vs.
State U.P. &
others
------
M. Katju, J.
Krishna
Kumar, J.
236 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6KUL 1DOLQ .XPDU 6KDUPD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH XQIDLUPHDQV *HQHUDO 0DQGDPXV
LVVXHG WR WKH %RDUG WR GHFLGH DOO FDVHV RI XQIDLUPHDQ ZLWKLQ WKH
SHULRG RI WKUHH PRQWK DQG WR FRPPXQLFDWH WKH UHVXOW E\ 3RVW WR DOO
WKH FRQFHUQHG VWXGHQWV DSDUW IURP WKDW WKH UHVXOW VKDOO EH
SXEOLVKHG LQ WZR ZHOO SRSXODU QHZV SDSHUV +HOG 3DUD $ ZULW
RI PDQGDPXV FRPPDQGLQJ JHQHUDOO\ FRQFHUQHG RIILFHUV WR GHFLGH
DOO WKH FDVHV RI XVLQJ XQIDLU PHDQV SHQGLQJ EHIRUH WKHP WLOO GDWH
ZLWKLQ D UHDVRQDEOH WLPH ZKLFK LQ WKH RSLQLRQ RI WKH &RXUW VKRXOG
QRW
EH
PRUH
WKDQ
WKUHH
PRQWKV
$OO
WKH
FDVHV
VKDOO
EH
FRPPXQLFDWHG WR WKH FRQFHUQHG FDQGLGDWHV E\ SRVW DV SHU SUDFWLFH
$SDUW IURP LQWLPDWLQJ WKH UHVXOW WR WKH FRQFHUQHG FDQGLGDWH DV
LQGLFDWHG DERYH WKH FRQFHUQHG DXWKRULWLHV DUH FRPPDQGHG WR
SXEOLVK WKH UHVXOW LQ WZR +LQGL DQG WZR (QJOLVK 'DLO\ QHZVSDSHUV
KDYLQJ ZLGH FLUFXODWLRQ LQ WKH HQWLUH 6WDWH RI 83 IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ RI
FRQFHUQHG SHUVRQV

By the Court

1. Petitioner was a regular student and appeared in the
Intermediate Examination, 1999 with Roll No.1153692 held by the
U.P. Board of high School and Intermediate, Allahabad.(for short
called 'Board') from the Centre Rashtriya Inter College, Shahpur
(Muzaffarnagar).

2. It is submitted that on 27th March 1999 while Petitioner
was attending to his Chemistry II Paper a 'Flying Squad' came for
inspection and a member of 'Flying Squad' found one small chit near
the Petitioner's seat in the Examination Hall and said chit was got
tagged with his Answer Sheet. Petitioner was made to sign blank
form. Petitioner has filed reports given by Invigilators in the
concerned Examination Room (Annexure-6-7 to the Writ Petition)

3. It appears that a notice dated 28th April 1999 (Annexure-4
to the Writ Petition) was given to the Regional Secretary of the
Secondary Education Board through an Advocate.

4. In reply to the said notice dated 28th April 1999 (Annexure4 to the Writ Petition) Regional Secretary of the Board informed that
such matters of using unfair means are being placed before Unfair
Means Committee constituted by the Board and the Unfair Means
Committee decides the cases after carefully examining the case and
thereafter result is being communicated to the concerned person. In
1999
------
Lalit Kumar
Garg
 Vs.
U.P. Board of
High School &
Intermediate,
Alld. & others
------
A. K. Yog,, J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
237
the said reply it is mentioned that decision is taken by the Unfair
Means Committee in accordance with rules and relevant procedure.

5. In paragraph 15 of the Writ Petition, Petitioner alleges that
delay in disposal of the matter by the Respondents is causing an
irreparable loss and his entire academic career is going to be ruined.
However, this Court finds that in Paragraph 16 Petitioner out of his
zeal or on legal advice made incorrect statement about his academic
career. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced a photo state
copy of the mark-sheet of the High School which shows that
Petitioner is only a second divisioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted before this
Court that averment in Paragraph 16 of the Writ Petition do not
depict true picture about the academic excellence of the Petitioner.

7. Taking into account the fact that the Petitioner's result of
Intermediate Examination, 1999 has been withheld and in case
decision is not taken ink his case, he will one academic session.

8. In view of the above, I find that it is fit case where this
Court should issue a writ of mandamus commanding generally
concerned officers to decide all the cases of using unfair means
pending before them till date within a reasonable time, which in the
opinion of the Court should not be more than three months from
today, i.e. November 30, 1999. Result of all the cases shall be
communicated to the concerned candidates by post as per practice. A
part from intimating the result to the concerned candidate as
indicated above, the concerned authorities are commanded to publish
the result in two Hindi and two English Daily newspapers having
wide circulation in the entire State of U.P. for information of
concerned persons.

9. In case Board find difficulty in achieving the object sought,
contained in the judgment of this Court, it shall approach concerned
authorities in the State Government for providing additional
resources and the same shall be provided by the State Government
forthwith.

With the above observation/direction, Writ Petition stands
allowed.
Petition Allowed.
1999
------
Lalit Kumar
Garg
 Vs.
U.P. Board of
High School &
Intermediate,
Alld. & others
------
A. K. Yog,, J.
238 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( .5,6+1$ .80$5 -
7+( +21·%/( .5,6+1$ .80$5 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

$MD\SDO 6LQJK
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
+LJK &RXUW RI -XGLFDWXUH DW $OODKDEDG
7KURXJK LWV 5HJLVWUDU DQG RWKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 'U 5*3DGLD
 0U 3UDNDVK 3DGLD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&
 0U 60$.D]PL
 0U 6XQLO $PEZDQL
 0U 6XGKLU $JDUZDO

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD ± RQO\ LQ H[WUHPH &DVHV
ZKHUH WKHUH LV WRWDO ODFN RI LQWHJULW\ RU ZKHUH WKHUH LV VRPH RWKHU
VHULRXV DOOHJDWLRQ ZKLFK LV IRXQG WUXH WKDW WKH &RXUW VKRXOG JLYH DQ
DGYHUVH HQWU\ EHFDXVH DGYHUVH HQWU\ JLYHQ WRR UHDGLO\ VSDLOV WKH
FDUHHU RI D -XGJH DQG &DXVHV GHPRUDOLV DFWLRQ LQ WKH VXERUGLQDWH
MXGLFLDU\ 7KH GLVSRVDO RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV DQG KLV LQWHJULW\
KDV EHHQ FHUWLILHG LQ WKH DQQXDO UHPDUNV ± WKH DGYHUVH HQWU\
ZDUQLQJ ZDV IRXQG XQFDOOHG IRU DQG XQMXVWLILHG DQG DV VXFK
TXDVKHG
+HOG ± 3DUD
7KLV &RXUW VKRXOG QRW EH WRR KDUVK WR MXGJHV RI WKH VXERUGLQDWH
MXGLFLDU\ DQG VKRXOG WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW WKH WUHPHQGRXV GLIILFXOWLHV
DQG SUHVVXUHV XQGHU ZKLFK WKH\ ZHUH ZRUNLQJ

By The Court

1.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the part of the
annual remark against the petitioner for the year 1995-96 as
communicated by the High Court through his letter dated 27.3.97,
Annexure 8 to the writ petition and for quashing the order dated
21.5.96 Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

1999
------
August, 18