# Radheshyam v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1339
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-30
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6890 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radheshyam-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52254
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service matter- Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226-U.P. Recognized Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules 1978-Rule 4-Petitioner
sought payment of contributory provident
fund, pension, and salary arrears-The
court had previously held( in 2018) that
seniority would only count from the year a
teacher
obtained
the
necessary
qualifications, making one Ravendra Singh
senior to the respondents-The Director of
Education, however ruled in 2018 that
seniority should be based on initial
appointment dates, disregarding the 2018
court
ruling-The
court
quashed
the
Director's
order
and
reaffirmed
that
seniority should be determined from the
date of obtaining training qualifications,
not initial appointment-The director was
ordered to reconsider the seniority claims
within two months.(Para 1 to 33)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Radheshyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1339
Officer and accordingly it reveals that
family members of the applicant No. 1 and
applicant are able to do pairavi in the case;
(v) Applicant No. 1 has to attend the case
instituted at District-Pratapgarh by wife,
this Court finds no force in the application.

24.

Accordingly,
present
application is rejected. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1339
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-A No. 6890 of 2024
Alonwith
Writ-A No. 18846 of 2018

Radheshyam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Uma Nath Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service matter- Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226-U.P. Recognized Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules 1978-Rule 4-Petitioner
sought payment of contributory provident
fund, pension, and salary arrears-The
court had previously held( in 2018) that
seniority would only count from the year a
teacher
obtained
the
necessary
qualifications, making one Ravendra Singh
senior to the respondents-The Director of
Education, however ruled in 2018 that
seniority should be based on initial
appointment dates, disregarding the 2018
court
ruling-The
court
quashed
the
Director's
order
and
reaffirmed
that
seniority should be determined from the
date of obtaining training qualifications,
not initial appointment-The director was
ordered to reconsider the seniority claims
within two months.(Para 1 to 33)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad & anr Vs Hari
Deo Mani Tripathi & ors. (1996) 9 SCC 623

2. Shitla Prasad Shukla Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(1986) UPLBEC 473

3. Panchami Singh & ors. Vs Jt. Dir. of Edu.
Gorakhpur & ors. (2003) 1 363 All

4. Arvind Kumar Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2013) 1 UPLBEC 419

5. Jagdish Narain Shastri Vs Basic Shiksha
Parishad Etawah (1986) UPLBEC 1058 (CMWP
No. 10920 of 1986)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Case called out in the revised
list.

2. Heard Sri Kushmondeya Shahi,
the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Manoj
Srivastava,
learned
Standing
Counsel representing respondents no. 1, to
3 and Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no. 6. No
other
counsel
is
present
and
no
adjournment of the case has been sought.

3. By means of Writ-A No. 18846
of 2018 filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner -
Ravendra
Singh,
has
challenged
the
validity of an order dated 07.08.2018,
passed by the Director of Education
(Secondary), U.P. Lucknow, rejecting the
petitioner's
representation
dated
1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
23.03.2018, through which he had claimed
to be placed in seniority list above the
respondents no. 5 to 7, and had claimed
payment of salary on the post of Trained
Assistant
Teacher
with
effect
from
27.10.2004.

4. Writ-A No. 6890 of 2024 has
been filed by the petitioner - Radheshyam,
who is opposite party no. 6 in Writ-A No.
18846 of 2018, claiming payment of
contributory provident fund, pension and
other retiral benefits and also arrears of
salary for the period 14.11.2005 to
10.09.2018.

5. Writ-A No. 6890 of 2024 has
apparently been filed for the reason that an
interim order dated 05.09.2018 was passed
in Writ-A No. 18846 of 2018 directing that
status quo, as is existed of the date of the
said order, shall be maintained.

6. Briefly stated facts of the case
are that the respondents no. 5 to 7 -
Brijbhan, Radhey Shyam and Prem Prakash
Srivastava, were appointed as Assistant
Teachers in Captain M.D. Singh Uchchatar
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya,
Basti
on
01.07.1981,
whereas
the
petitioner
-
Ravendra
Singh,
was
appointed
as
Assistant
Teacher in
the
aforesaid
institution on 05.04.1984.

7. Rule 4 of the U. P. Recognized
Basic Schools (Junior High Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules 1978, as it stood prior to
its amendment by a Notification dated
04.12.2019, provided that the minimum
qualification for the post of Assistant
Teacher of a recognized school shall be
Intermediate Examination of the Board of
High School and Intermediate Education,
Uttar Pradesh or equivalent examination
with Hindi and a Teacher's Training
Course
recognised
by
the
State
Government or
the Board
such
as
Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior
Teaching
Certificate,
Basic
Teaching
Certificate, or Certificate of Training.

8. Although, the respondents no. 5
to 7 were appointed as Assistant Teacher
on 01.07.1981, they did not possesses the
essential qualification of training, as
provided by Rule 4 aforesaid and all of
them acquired the requisite qualification
of training in the year 1986.

9. On the other hand, the
petitioner - Ravendra Singh had acquired
the requisite qualification of training in the
year 1982 and he possessed the essential
qualification on 05.04.1984 - the date of
his appointment as Assistant Teacher in
Captain
M.D.
Singh
Uchchatar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Basti.

10. At the time when the
petitioner joined as an Assistant Teacher in
the Institution in question, it was a junior
high school, it was upgraded to High
School level with effect from 22.11.1985,
and the provisions of U. P. High Schools
and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of
Salaries to Teachers and other Employees)
Act, 1971 became applicable to the
institution after the benefit of aid was
extended to it on 27.10.2004.

11. A Government Order dated
27.10.2004, specifies that apart from the
post of Principal, seven posts of Assistant
Teacher, one post of clerk and five posts of
peon were sanctioned in the college. The
names of respondent nos. 5 to 7 were
included as Assistant Teachers of the
college, whereas the name of the petitioner
was not included therein.
7 All. Radheshyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1341
12. The petitioner filed Writ-A No.
72525 of 2005, stating that although
respondent nos. 5 to 7 had been appointed
on 01.07.1981, they did not possess the
essential qualification of training on the
date of their appointment and also on the
date
of
approval
granted
to
their
appointment on 10.01.1986. The petitioner
was appointed on 05.04.1984, and the
District Basic Education Officer had
granted
approval
to
the
petitioner's
appointment on 07.12.1985.

13. An interim order dated
25.11.2005, was passed in Writ-A No.
72525 of 2005, withholding payment of
salary to respondent nos. 5 to 7 until further
orders. On 21.04.2009, this Court passed
another order directing that the Director,
Madhyamik Education to take a final
decision in the pending enquiry in respect
of grant of salary to the petitioner as well as
the respondents and it was provided that the
interim order granted earlier shall continue
to operate till final disposal of the Writ
Petition.

14. In furtherance of the aforesaid
order dated 21.04.2009 passed in Writ-A
No. 72525 of 2005, the Director proceeded
to passed an order dated 01.06.2009
holding that the respondent nos. 5 to 7 were
appointed on 01.07.1981, and they were
senior to the petitioner, who was appointed
on 05.04.1984 and, therefore, they were
entitled to get salary.

15. The petitioner challenged the
aforesaid order dated 01.06.2009 passed by
the Director by filing Writ-A No. 33324 of
2009.

16. Both the Writ Petitions nos.
72525 of 2005 and 33324 of 2005 filed by
the petitioner Ravendra Singh were allowed
by means of a common judgment and order
dated 13.03.2018 passed by this Court, in
which this Court held that it is settled law
that benefit of seniority would enure to an
Assistant Teacher only after he attains
training
qualification.
The
private
respondents admittedly were not possessing
any training qualification on the date of
their appointment. They have obtained such
qualification in the year 1986. Their entry
into service would be treated only from
1986, and not prior to it for the purposes of
seniority. For the aforesaid reason, this
Court, allowed the writ petition quashed the
impugned order and Director of Education
(Secondary) to consider the respective
claims of the parties afresh, in light of the
aforesaid observations made by this Court
in the judgment dated 13.03.2018, and also
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and
Another versus Hari Deo Mani Tripathi
and Others: (1996) 9 SCC 623.

17. After passing of the aforesaid
order, the petitioner - Ravendra Singh
submitted
a
representation
dated
23.03.2018, and the Director Education
((Secondary) has rejected the same by the
impugned order dated 07.08.2018. The
Director of Education has stated in the
impugned order that respondent nos. 5 to 7
had acquired the qualification of training in
the year 1986 i.e. prior to 01.01.2004, when
the college was taken on grant-in-aid list.
The
petitioner
was
appointed
on
05.04.1984, on probation for a period of
one year and the District Basic Education
Officer had granted approval to the
petitioner's appointment by means of an
order dated 07.12.1985. The appointment
of petitioner made on 05.04.1984, was not
as per rules, as the petitioner had been
appointed prior to approval by the District
Basis Education Officer.
1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. It is relevant to note in this
regard that the respondent nos. 5 to 7 were
also appointed on 01.07.1981, and approval
for their appointment was granted on
10.01.1986 but the Director Education
(Secondary) did not raise such objection
against validity of their appointment
although, approval of their appointment
was granted five years after their actual
appointment.

19. The Director of Education
proceeded to state in the impugned order
that as per the provisions contained in
Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the
Regulations framed under the Intermediate
Education Act, seniority of a teacher shall
be fixed from the date of his original
appointment. The original appointment of
the petitioner was made on 05.04.1984,
whereas the respondent nos. 5 to 7, were
appointed on 01.07.1981. He has taken into
consideration a report submitted by the
District Inspector of Schools, Basti, stating
that the institution in question was included
in the grant-in-aid list on 27.10.2004, but
the list of teachers of the college did not
include the name of the petitioner and,
therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to
payment of salary. The report submitted by
the D.I.O.S. also stated that the petitioner
had acquired training on 16.07.1982, and
he was appointed on 05.04.1984, whereas
the respondent nos. 5 to 7 were appointed
on 01.07.1981 and they had acquired
training in the years 1986. In compliance of
the order dated 25.11.2005, passed by this
Court in Writ-A No. 72525 of 2005, the
directorate had passed an order dated
01.06.2009, holding the petitioner to be
junior to the other three teachers, due to
which reason salary was not being paid to
him. Regarding the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hari Deo Mani Tripathi
(supra), the Director held that the Basic
Education Service Rules 1981 apply to the
Basic Schools, whereas Captain M.D.
Singh Higher Secondary Schools is not a
Basic School and is not regulated by the
aforesaid Rules. It was a Junior High
School, which was upgraded to a High
School and thereafter it was taken on grantin-aid list. The appointments of teachers
made prior to 1985 were governed by U.P.
Recognized Basis Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Teachers) Rules 1978.

20. The Director of Education held
that the institution in question which is
aided and recognized up to intermediate
level, is governed by the provisions of U.P.
Intermediate Education
Act,
U.P.
Secondary Education Service Selection
Board, U.P. High School and Intermediate
Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers
and other Employees) Act, 1971. The
respondent nos. 5 to 7 were appointed on
01.07.1981, whereas the petitioner was
appointed on 05.04.1984, therefore, the
petitioner is junior to the other three
teachers. The Director categorically stated
that the seniority of teachers will be
calculated on the basis of their initial
appointment and not from the date of their
acquiring the eligibility condition of
training.

21. While assailing validity of the
aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has drawn attention of the Court
to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and
Another versus Hari Deo Mani Tripathi
and Others: (1996) 9 SCC 623, wherein
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
had
propounded the following principals: -

"23. Historically, as we
have noticed earlier, untrained
7 All. Radheshyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1343
Assistant Teachers used to be
employed when trained teachers
were
not
available
and
the
untrained
Assistant
Teachers
became trained Assistant Teachers
only on their getting requisite
certificate of training and from
that date only they were treated as
regular Assistant Teachers getting
the proper scale of pay meant for
them. It is the trained Assistant
Teacher who alone was eligible for
promotion
to
the
post
of
Headmaster.
There
were
three
scales even for trained Assistant
Teachers
and
it
was
trained
Assistant Teacher in the Higher
scale who was eligible for being
promoted as Headmaster. When
the 1981 Rules came into force the
writ petitioners had by then
become trained Assistant Teachers
and as such under Rule 22 only
the date of appointment as trained
Assistant Teacher in substantive
capacity is to be seen and not the
date of appointment as untrained
Assistant Teacher.
24. Reliance by the High
Court on the case of Jagdish
Narain Shastri (supra) is not
proper as that case related to
Assistant
Teacher
of
Sanskrit
employed under Rule 13.A of the
Manual for whom no qualification
of trained teacher was required and
thus the judgment in that case was
of no avail to the learned Judge in
the present case. In the past also
the seniority lists were being
maintained separately for trained
Assistant Teachers and untrained
Assistant Teachers.
25. Thus the respondents,
untrained teachers, are of a
different class and cannot rely
upon the service as untrained
Assistant Teachers in the lower
grade with the trained Assistant
Teachers drawing higher grade of
pay."
(Emphasis added)

22. Regulation 3, Chapter II of the
Regulation
framed
under
the
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides
as follows: -

"For the purposes of this
case
relevant
provision
of
Regulation 3 of Chapter-II, which
reads as follows, is also being
looked into:
"3.
The
Committee
of
Management of every institution
shall cause a seniority list of
teachers
to
be
prepared
in
accordance with the following
provisions-
(a) The seniority list shall
be prepared separately for each
grade
of
teachers
whether
permanent or temporary, on any
substantive post;
(b) Seniority of teachers in
a grade shall be determined on the
basis
of
their
substantive
appointment in that grade. If two
or more teachers were so appointed
on the same date, seniority shall be
determined
on
the
basis
of
age;......................"
(Emphasis added)

23. In Shitla Prasad Shukla
versus State of U.P. and Others: 1986
UPLBEC 473, wherein a distinction was
made between teachers who were regularly
and properly appointed and those whose
appointment became regular subsequently.
1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
It was held that these two sets of teachers
would belong to different streams and a
teacher whose appointment became regular
at some point of time after this appointment
could not be permitted to steal a march
over a teacher who was regularly appointed
earlier.

24. In Panchami Singh and
Others Vs. Joint Director of Education
Gorakhpur and Others: 2003 (1) ESC
363 (All), this Court held that: -

"where
the
petitioner
acquired the requisite training
qualification subsequent to his
appointment, he became a qualified
trained teacher, only from the date
he
acquired
the
training
qualification."

25. A Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court held in Arvind Kumar Tripathi
versus State of U.P. and Others: 2013 (1)
UPLBEC 419, that: -

"On the parameters of the
aforesaid regulation quote above, it
is apparent that ad-hoc service has
hardly
relevance
and
inter
se
seniority is dependent totally from
the date of substantive appointment."

26. Per contra, Sri Uma Nath
Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 6 has submitted that in the case of Hari
Deo Mani Tripathi (Supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had referred to a judgment of
this Court in the case of Jagdish Narain
Shastri
vs.
Basic
Shiksha
Parishad,
Etawah: 1986 UPLBEC 1058 (Civil Misc.
Writ No. 10920 of 1986, decided on
07.08.1986), in which this High Court held
that: -
"Eligibility for promotion
Under Rule 18 of U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) Service Rules
is
seniority
alone.
Therefore,
Petitioner or any other teacher who
was appointed as teacher in 1962
or onwards was eligible to be
called for interview, when opposite
parties who were appointed later
and were junior to Petitioner were
not
only
called
but
selected.
Exclusion of Petitioner because
they received training later than
opposite parties is not supported by
any rule or government order.
Training for the post of head
master of Junior High School may
be imperative. But that in absence
of any rule could not be basis of
seniority. Requirement is training
and not the period or length of
training. Although even if that
would
have
been
necessary
Petitioner took training in 1972-73
is more than ten years before
selection. In any case the scope of
any ambiguity has been ruled out
as the government by its order
issued
in 1981
clarified
that
training shall not result in break of
service and all those appointed
prior to 1968 shall be entitled to be
treated as in continuous service.
Exclusion of Petitioner, therefore,
was not justified.

This Court directed the
authorities
to
treat
all
those
teachers of Junior Basic Schools
who were appointed prior to 1968
but received their training later on
as
senior
in
order
of
their
appointment and call them for
interview for the post of head
master.
7 All. Radheshyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1345
27. While dealing with the
judgment in the case of Jagdish Narain
Shastri (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court noted in Hari Deo Mani Tripathi
(Supra) that the High Court has recorded a
concession given on behalf of the petitioner
that they were interested in getting their
promotion and having their seniority fixed
and, therefore, they did not want to disturb
the
headmasters
already
selected.
Consequently, the High Court had directed
that seniority of the petitioners be fixed
afresh and thereafter, they be considered for
promotion. An order passed on concession
of the parties, without recording any
finding or reasons of the Court, does not
lay down any ratio decidendi, which would
be binding on subsequent cases. Moreover,
in para 24 of the judgment in Hari Deo
Mani Tripathi (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that reliance by the
High Court in the case of Jagdish Narain
Shastri (supra) is not proper.

28. The learned counsel for the
respondent no. 6 has next submitted that
the case of Hari Deo Mani Tripathi
(supra), dealt with a question of seniority
of a teacher in basic school and not with a
teacher of an intermediate college.

29. In this regard, suffice it to say
that the judgment in Hari Deo Mani
Tripathi (supra) lays down a principle of
law regarding fixation of seniority, that if
an
untrained Assistant Teachers
was
employed when trained teachers were not
available, he can be treated as a regular
Assistant Teacher only after he acquires the
requisite certificate of training. Only the
date of appointment as trained Assistant
Teacher in substantive capacity is to be
seen and not the date of appointment as
untrained Assistant Teacher. Untrained
teachers are of a different class and the
service rendered as untrained teacher
cannot be equated with the services of the
trained Assistant
Teachers.
Therefore,
separate seniority lists of trained Assistant
Teachers and untrained Assistant Teachers
should be maintained. This principle is not
limited is applicable to the teachers of basic
schools and the principle would apply to
the
teachers
of
High
Schools
and
Intermediate colleges as well.

30. In the judgment and order
dated 13.03.2018, passed by this Court in
Writ-A Nos. 72525 of 2005 and 33324 of
2009 this Court had categorically held that
the respondent nos. 5 to 7, admittedly were
not possessing any training qualification on
the date of their appointment and they
obtained such qualification in the year
1986. Their entry into service would be
treated only from 1986 and not prior to it
for the purposes of seniority. After
recording the aforesaid finding, this Court
had directed the Director of Education
(Secondary) to accord consideration to the
respective claims of the parties afresh
keeping in view the observation made
above. The Director of Education has
passed the impugned order, without taking
into consideration the aforesaid observation
made by this Court in the judgment and
order dated 13.03.2018, that the entry of
the respondent nos. 5 to 7 into service
would be treated only from 1986 and not
prior to it.

31. As the Director of Education
has passed the impugned order dated
07.08.2018 against the findings recorded by
this court in the judgment and order dated
13.03.2018 passed in Writ-A Nos. 72525 of
2005 and 33324 of 2009, and also against
the principle of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari
Deo Mani Tripathi (supra), the order
1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed by the Director of Education
(Secondary) is unsustainable in law.

32. The claim of the petitioner in
Writ A No. 6890 of 2024 is consequential
to the order to be passed by this Court in
Writ A No. 18846 of 2018 and the learned
Counsel for the petitioner in Writ A No.
6890 of 2024 has advanced submissions in
opposition of Writ A No. 18846 of 2018
only.

33. Accordingly Writ A No. 18846
is allowed and the impugned order dated
07.08.2018, passed by the Director of
Education (Secondary) is quashed and Writ
A No. 6890 of 2024 is dismissed.

34. The matter is remanded to the
Director of Education (Secondary) to pass a
fresh order regarding the claim of seniority
of the petitioner and the respondent nos. 5
to 7, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order, after giving adequate opportunity of
hearing to the affected persons and keeping
in view the observations made by this
Court in the earlier judgment and order
dated 13.03.2018 passed by this Court in
passed in Writ-A Nos. 72525 of 2005 and
33324 of 2009 as well as the observations
made in this judgment.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1346
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY , J.

Application U/S 482 No. 20438 of 2022

Nikki Devi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, Amar Bahadur
Maurya, Amber Khanna, Anubhav Dwivedi,
Anurag Mishra, Deepak Singh Patel, Dev
Kant Trigunait, Dinesh Kumar Pandey,
Durgesh Chandra Tiwari, Kavindra Dwivedi,
Mukesh Kumar, Neeraj Kumar Pandey, Raj
Kumar Khanna, Rajendra Prasad Dubey,
Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Ramesh Kumar
Ojha, Sanjai Singh, Satya Dheer Singh
Jadaun, Saurabh Basu, Shailesh Kumar,
Upendra Upadhyay, Vinod Rajmurti Yadav,
Vishwambhar Nath

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Anurag Kamal, G.A., Hari Om Rai

A.
Criminal
Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
482-Indian
Penal
Code, 1860-Sections 376-D & 506 & -
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Actapplicant seeks expedited trial in Session
Trial no. 560 of 2021 involving charges of
gang rape, criminal intimidation, and
violations of the SC/ST Act-non-practicing
advocates, in collaboration with women
from
SC/ST
community,
involved
in
fabricating false cases for personal and
financial
gain,
particularly
targeting
innocent individual (including practicing
advocates)-The
court
stayed
the
proceedings
of
trial
and
ordered
a
thorough investigation in this matter-CBI
inquiry revealed discrepancies in the
victims statements, raising doubts about
he validity of the allegations against the
accused-The CBI identified a pattern of
false allegations in 46 similar cases,
including the present one, which led to
concerns about the abuse of judicial
process for financial gain-the preliminary
enquiry reports clears the entire position
that innocent persons have been trapped
in fake and bogus cases at the behest of
Advocates.(Para 1 to 45)

B.
CBI
Inquiry
Ordered:-In
light
of
seriousness of the allegations and the
complexity of the matter, the Court
exercised its inherent powers to direct a
CBI investigation. The CBI was tasked