# Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1524
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-11-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56499 of 2011
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-kumar-v-union-of-india-ors-43061
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution of India,Art.-226-Termination
of
probationer
temporary
employeewithout held disciplinary proceeding-in
utter violation of principle of Natural
Justice-not sustainable quashed.
Held: Para-28
Considering the facts of the case, in the
light of the legal principles, discussed
herein above, I am of the view that the
impugned
order
of
termination
is
nothing but punitive and stigmatic,
therefore, cannot be sustained.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1958 SC 36; (1999) 3 SCC 60; 1987 (1)
SCC 146; (1984) 3 SCC 384; 2010 SC 3493;
[(1980) 2 SCC 593]; 1998 (2) SCC 192; ADJ
2013 8 617; 2002 (1) SCC 743.

## Text

1524
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be observed, and departure therefrom is
not permissible."
34.In Sharda v. Dharmpal , a threeJudge Bench, of which both of us are
parties, held that directing a person to
undergo a medical test by a matrimonial
court is implicit stating:"
(Emphasis supplied by me)
19. Similar principles with regard to
fraud have been laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of JT 2005(6)
SC 391, para 7 to 15, JT 2007(4) SC 186,
para 19 to 39, JT 2009(9) SC 365, para 22
and 23, JT 2008 (3) SC 452, para 12.3 to
15, JT 2009(5) SC 278, para 13 to 18 and
28 and JT 2008(8) SC 57.
20. In the present set of facts the
petitioners have not approached this Court
with clean hands, clean mind and clean
heart. They have made false averments in
the writ petition. They have filed fake
papers along with the writ petition and
have also produced before this Court the
fake Marriage Certificate. Such matters
should be dealt without any leniency.
21. The respondent no. 1, 2, 4 and 5
are directed to take appropriate action in
accordance
with
law
against
the
petitioners and others who prepared fake
marriage certificate.
22. The action shall also be taken
under the criminal law. it shall be open
for the respondent no. 5 to lodge F.I.R.
and if any F.I.R. is lodged then
respondent no.2 and 4 shall take all steps
for quick and qualitative investigation in
the matter in accordance with law.
23. Under the circumstances, this
writ petition is dismissed with cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioner no. 2
which shall be deposited by the petitioner
no. 2 within a month with High Court
Legal Cell Authority, Allahabad.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56499 of 2011
Rajesh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., S.C., Sri Satish Kishore Kakkar
Constitution of India,Art.-226-Termination
of
probationer
temporary
employeewithout held disciplinary proceeding-in
utter violation of principle of Natural
Justice-not sustainable quashed.
Held: Para-28
Considering the facts of the case, in the
light of the legal principles, discussed
herein above, I am of the view that the
impugned
order
of
termination
is
nothing but punitive and stigmatic,
therefore, cannot be sustained.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1958 SC 36; (1999) 3 SCC 60; 1987 (1)
SCC 146; (1984) 3 SCC 384; 2010 SC 3493;
[(1980) 2 SCC 593]; 1998 (2) SCC 192; ADJ
2013 8 617; 2002 (1) SCC 743.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)
1. The respondent State Bank of
India issued an advertisement in August,
2009 inviting applications for the post of
Assistant Clerk, the petitioner being
eligible applied for the post; appeared in
3 All]. Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1525
the written examination on 8.11.2009, on
qualifying, petitioner appeared in the
interview on 26.4.2010, was declared
selected. The respondent bank issued
appointment letter on 3.12.2010, pursuant
thereof, petitioner joined on 20.12.2010 as
Assistant Clerk at Branch Dohrighat,
District Mau of State Bank of India.
Petitioner was sent on training, on
successful
completion
of
training
petitioner was posted at Gorakhpur by
order dated 13.6.2011. The probation
period of the petitioner was enhanced by
three months for unsatisfactory work. By
order dated 27.8.2011, passed by the
Regional Manager, State Bank of India,
Gorakhpur, respondent no. 5, the service
of the petitioner was terminated for the
reason that some person impersonating
himself, appeared on behalf of the
petitioner in the written examination.
2. The petitioner is assailing order
dated 27.8.2011 passed by respondent no.
5.
3. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner was not
given any opportunity or show cause
before passing the impugned order, the
order is stigmatic and punitive, the
petitioner denied that someone else
impersonated the petitioner in the written
examination held on 8.11.2009, further,
the photographs fixed by the petitioner for
the
written
examination,
was
the
photographs used by the respondents in
all the stages of selection.
4. Per Contra Sri S.K. Kakkar,
learned counsel appearing for the bank
would submit that the facts are not in
dispute,
however,
the
petitioner's
appointment
was
subject
to
the
verification
of
final
records,
an
undertaking, dated 21.12.2010, was taken
that in the event, the documents are found
incorrect, the service of the petitioner
would stand automatically terminated. On
receipt of letter from the Zonal Office, reverification was done, the bank asked the
petitioner to submit two photographs and
also provide specimen signature. The
Gorakhpur Office of the Bank conducted the
verification of the photographs and the
signatures, it was found that there was some
anomaly,
thus,
on
apprehension
of
impersonation, the Branch Manager vide
letter dated 29th April, 2011 requested the
Controlling Authority/Administrative Office,
Gorakhpur to get the matter investigated by
the
appropriate
authority.
It
appears,
thereafter, the matter was referred to the hand
writing expert for verification of thumb
impression/signature of the petitioner on the
call letter. The handwriting expert opined
that the thumb impression on the call letter
does not match the specimen thumb
impression of the incumbent i.e. the
petitioner. Thus, in view of fraud and
misrepresentation, the petitioner's services
was
terminated
forthwith,
being
on
probationer. It is admitted that no show cause
notice was given to the petitioner, enclosing
the report of the handwriting expert, nor any
explanation was called from the petitioner.
5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6.

The
only
question
for
determination is, as to whether, the
impugned order terminating the service of
the probationer petitioner is stigmatic and
punitive.
Probationer
7. Mere form of the order using
expressions "terminate", 'discharge' etc, is
1526
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not conclusive and despite the use of such
innocuous expressions, the Court can
examine the matter to find out the true
nature of the order terminating the service
of the petitioner. This has been the
consistent view of the Supreme Court in
several Constitution Bench decisions
rendered in Parshottam Lal Dhingra vs.
Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36, State of
Bihar vs. Gopi Kishore Prashad AIR 1960
SC 689, Jagdish Mitter vs. Union of India
and others 1964 SC 449, Shemsher Singh
vs. State of Punjab and others 1974(2)
SCC 831.
8. Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash
Banerjee
vs.
Saytendra
Nath
Bose
National Centre for Basic Sciences,
Calcutta
and
others1
observed
as
follows:-
"25. In the matter of `stigma', this
Court has held that the effect which an
order of termination may have on a
person's future prospects of employment
is a matter of relevant consideration. In
the seven Judge case in Samsher Singh vs.
State of Punjab [1974 (2) SCC 831],
Ray,CJ observed that if a simple order of
termination was passed, that would
enable the officer to "make good in other
walks of life without a stigma. "It was also
stated in Bishan Lal Gupta vs. State of
Haryana [1978 (1) SCC 202] that if the
order contained a stigma, the termination
would
be
bad for
"the
individual
concerned must suffer a substantial loss
of reputation which may affect his future
prospects".
9. In Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs.
Pan American World Airways2, Supreme
Court explained the meaning of 'stigma'
and
what
amounts
to
'stigma'
as
follows(p150):
"According to Webster's New World
Dictionary, it (stigma) is something that
detracts from the character or reputation
of a person, a mark, sign etc., indicating
that something is not considered normal
or standard. The Legal Thesuras by
Burton gives the meaning of the word to
be blemish, defect, disgrace, disrepute,
imputation, mark of disgrace or shame.
The Webster's Third New International
Dictionary gives the meaning as a mark
or label indicating a deviation from a
norm. According to yet another dictionary
`stigma' is a matter for moral reproach."
10. A three Judge Bench decision in
Indra Pal Gupta vs. Managing Committee,
Model Inter College3 is a clear authority
for the proposition that the material which
amounts to stigma need not be contained
in the order of termination of the
probationer but might be contained in any
document referred to in the termination
order or in its Annexures. Obviously such
a document could be asked for or called
for by any future employer of the
probationer. In such a case, the order of
termination would stand vitiated on the
ground that no regular inquiry was
conducted.
11. Supreme Court in Union of India
and others vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi AIR4
observed as follows:-
"15. The High Court also referred to
the Special Bench decision of this Court is
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and
Anr. MANU/SC/0073/1974: AIR SC 2192:
MANU/SC/0073/1974:1974(2) SCC 831
which was a decision rendered by a
Bench of seven judges, holding that the
decisive factor in the context of the
discharge of a probationer from service is
the substance of the order and not the
3 All]. Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1527
form in determining whether the order of
discharge is stigmatic or not or whether
the same formed the motive for foundation
of the order.
31.............Not only is it clear from
the materials on record, but even in their
pleadings the petitioners have themselves
admitted that the order of 13th June,
2002, had been issued on account of the
Respondent's
misconduct
and
that
misconduct was the very basis of the said
order. That being so, having regard to the
consistent view taken by this Court that if
an order of discharge of a probationer is
passed as a punitive measure, without
giving him an opportunity of defending
himself, the same would be invalid and
liable to be quashed, and the same finding
would be also apply to the Respondent's
case. As has also been held in some of the
cases cited before us, if a findings against
a probationer is arrived at behind his
back on the basis of the enquiry
conducted into the allegations made
against him/her and if the same formed
the foundation of the order of discharge,
the same would be bad and liable to be
set aside. On the other hand, if no enquiry
was held or contemplated and the
allegations were merely a motive for the
passing of an order of discharge of a
probationer without giving him a hearing,
the same would be valid. However, the
latter view is not attracted/to the facts of
this case.................This case, in our view,
is not covered by the decision of this
Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee's case
(supra)".
12. In what circumstances, an order
of termination of a probationer can be
said to be punitive depends upon whether
certain allegations which are the cause of
the termination or the motive of the
foundation of the order.
13. In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha5
Supreme Court explained 'foundation' as
follows:-
"A termination effected because the
master is satisfied of the misconduct and
of
the
consequent
desirability
of
terminating the service of the delinquent
servant, it is a dismissal, even if he had
the right in law to terminate with an
innocent order under the standing order
or otherwise. Whether, in such a case the
grounds are recorded in a different
proceeding from the formal order does
not detract from its nature. Nor the fact
that, after being satisfied of the guilt, the
master
abandons
the
enquiry
and
proceeds to terminate. Given an alleged
misconduct and a live nexus between it
and the termination of service the
conclusion is dismissal. even if full
benefits as on simple termination, are
given and non-injurious terminology is
used.
On the contrary, even if there is
suspicion of misconduct the master may
say that he does not wish to bother about
it and may not go into his guilt but may
feel like not keeping a man he is not
happy with. He may not like to investigate
nor take the risk of continuing a dubious
servant. Then it is not dismissal but
termination simpliciter, if no injurious
record of reasons or punitive pecuniary
cut-back on his full terminal benefits is
found. For, in fact, misconduct is not then
the moving factor in the discharge."
14.

The
distinction
between
"foundation" and "motive" was explained
in Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra):
"If findings were arrived at in an
enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back
1528
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the officer or without a regular
departmental enquiry, the simple order of
termination is to be treated as "founded"
on the allegations and will be bad. But if
the enquiry was not held, no findings were
arrived at and the employer was not
inclined to conduct an enquiry but, at the
same time he did not want to continue the
employee against whom there were
complaints, it would only be a case of
motive and the order would not be bad.
Similar is the position if the employer did
not want to enquire into the truth of the
allegations because of delay in regular
departmental proceedings or he was
doubtful
about
securing
adequate
evidence. In such a circumstance, the
allegations would be a motive and not the
foundation and the simple order of
termination would be valid.
Expert Opinion
15. Expert opinion is only an
opinion and has been considered to be of
a very weak nature. The decision of the
bank is based on the expert opinion alone
to establish the guilt of impersonation.
16. In Gulzar Ali Vs. Sate of
Himachal Pradesh6 the Supreme Court
observed that the observation of the High
Court that there is a natural tendency on
the part of an expert witness to support
the view of the party who called him,
could not be downgraded. Many so-called
experts
have
been
shown
to
be
remunerated
witnesses
making
themselves available on hire to pledge
their oath in favour of the party paying
them.
17. This Court considering large
number of judgments in Tika Ram vs.
Daulat Ram7 held as follows:-
"9. Evidence of an expert is only an
opinion. Expert evidence is only a piece of
evidence and external evidence. It has to
be considered along with other pieces of
evidence. Which would be the main
evidence and which is the corroborative
one depends upon the facts of each case.
An expert's opinion is admissible to
furnish the Court a scientific opinion
which is likely to be outside the
experience and knowledge of a Judge.
This kind of testimony, however, has been
considered to be of very weak nature and
expert is usually required to speak, not to
facts, but to opinions. It is quite often
surprising to see with what facility, and to
what extent, their views would be made to
correspond with the wishes and interests
of the parties who call them. They do not,
indeed, wilfully misrepresent what they
think, but their judgment becomes so
warped by regarding the subject in one
point of view, that, when conscientiously
deposed, they are incapable of expressing
a candid opinion."
18. The Court has made the
observation in trial, treating handwriting
expert
evidence
as
being
opinion
evidence.
In
service
jurisprudence
allegation
has
to
be
proved
on
preponderance and not beyond reasonable
doubt. But the delinquent employee has to
be confronted with the evidence as it is
rebuttable.
19. Applying the law on the facts of
the case, a perusal of the report dated
5.7.2011 submitted by one R. Krishna
(B.Sc., L.L.B., M.A. (Criminology &
Forensic Science) Consulting Forensic
Expert formerly Assistant Professor of
Criminology & Forensic Science (Sagar
University)
rendered
the
following
opinion which is extracted below:-
3 All]. Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1529
On a very careful examination of the
signatures,
thumb
impressions
and
photographs of the above referred person,
I am of the following opinion:-
(a) The signatures made on Call
Letter at the time of examination does not
match with the other standard signatures
of Sri Rajesh Kumar. The reasons of my
opinion are in Annexure No. 1.
(b) The thumb impression on the Call
Letter, which is expected to be of Right
Thumb do not match with the specimen
thumb of Right Thumb of Sri Rajesh
Kumar. The reasons of my opinion are
given in Annexure No. 2.
(c) The photographs on the Call
Letter of the person who appeared in the
examination does not match with the
photographs of the person who is joining
the Bank. The reasons of my opinion are
given in Annexure No. 3.
Opinion:
On
very
careful
examination
of
the
above
referred
signatures and writing written as 'Rajesh
Kumar' as in A-2, I am of the opinion,
that the signature D-1 is not made by the
same
person,
who
has
made
the
signatures and writing S-1 to S-3 and A-1
to A-3.
Reference of Photographs:
(A)= Standard photograph of Sri.
Rajesh Kumar Submitted at the time of
joining of the Bank.
(B)= Photograph of the Call Letter
of the person who appeared in the
examination.
Opinion:
On
very
careful
examination of the two above referred
photographs marked (A) and (B), I am of
the opinion, the photograph (A) differs
with that of (B) and both the photographs
are not of the same person.
The reasons of my opinion are
follows:
1. ...................
2.The
length
of
face
of
photograph(A) is more than that of (B).
3.The
width
of
the
face
of
photograph (A) should have been more
than that of the face of photograph (B) in
the same proportion, but it is not. The
width of the face of photograph(A) is
lesser than of the face of the photograph
(B) as marked by the red line of the
photographic enlargement.
4...................
5...................
6...................
20. It is contended on behalf of the
respondents that the principles of natural
justice would not apply in the facts of the
present case, as the petitioner has
obtained appointment on the basis of
fraud and misrepresentation and in any
case, the petitioner was on probation
hence, the petitioner's service could be
terminated without assigning any reason.
21. The contention is not accepted for
the simple reason that the bank instead of
simply terminating the services on the
ground of unsuitability or poor performance
during the probation, conducted an enquiry
regarding the conduct of the petitioner for
impersonation, fraud and misrepresentation,
and after a full fledged enquiry conducted
behind his back, evidence was collected by
inviting expert opinion to prove the guilt.
The motive is not termination simpliciter, the
foundation being as to whether the petitioner
impersonated in the written examination or
not and the bank has acted upon the opinion
of an expert taken behind the back of the
petitioner without confronting the petitioner,
the findings of the handwriting expert.
22. The contention of learned
counsel for the respondent that the fact of
1530
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impersonation is not rebuttable, even after
giving opportunity, the petitioner shall not
be able to rebut the findings of the expert
opinion, cannot be accepted for the simple
reason that the expert opinion can always
be questioned by the petitioner. It is not a
case where the petitioner had obtained
appointment by filling forged verification
documents or caste certificate, but is a
case of impersonation i.e. act of fraud and
misrepresentation which is being sought
to be proved on evidences to justify the
action and suspicion of the Bank. Fraud
and misrepresentation is a question of
fact, which has to be pleaded and proved
after opportunity to the aggrieved party.
23. A perusal of the impugned order
dated
13.9.2011,
addressed
to
the
petitioner, the subject is 'cancellation of
appointment'. After giving background of
the examination conducted, the petitioner
appearing
in
the
examination
the
impugned order records as follows:
Cancellation of Appointment.
"1. With reference to above, we
advise that the written test for the
captioned
recruitment
exercise
was
conducted on 8th, 15th and 22nd
November, 2009 and you were required to
appear in the written test at Bal Vidya
Mandir, Station Road, Charbag, Lucknow
on 8th November, 2009 at 9:15 A.M.
However, you did not appear in the
written test at the scheduled date, time
and venue but some body else appeared in
the above said test impersonating to be
yourself.
2. .........................
3. ........................
4. Therefore you suppressed this
material fact that you did not appear in
the written test held on 8th November,
2009 at 9:15 A.M. On Roll No.
2601001887 allotted to you at Bal Vidya
Mandir,
Station
Road,
Charbagh,
Lucknow and allowed some one else to
appear in the written test in your place, as
such your so called selection in Bank is
void ab-initio. Accordingly, there is no
service contract between you and the
Bank and any engagement thereto in
pursuance to the referred appointment
letter is invalid and void ab-initio.
However, for the record sake you are
informed by this letter that your selection
on the referred ground is calcelled in
express terms by virtue of this letter which
please note. Accordingly, your name has
been struck off from the employee's
roll/list of the Bank.
5. Please acknowledge receipt of this
letter."
24. The discharge order is not order
simpliciter, it in clear terms states that the
foundation for termination is that the
petitioner "did not appear in the written
test
and
somebody
else
appeared......impersonating to be yourself"
is stigmatic and punitive and reflects upon
the character/reputation of a person, it is
blemish, imputation, label indicating
deviation from a norm.
25. In the case of State of Punjab
Vs. Balbir Singh8. The order of discharge
mention the words "unlikely to prove an
efficient police officer." Further before
passing the aforesaid order of discharge it
appears that Shri Balbir Singh, who was
found to have consumed liquor and
misbehaved with a lady constable was
medically
examined
and
thereafter
discharge order was passed. The appeal,
which was filed before the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, was rejected
and while rejecting the appeal, he referred
to the aforesaid facts and stated that the
3 All]. Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1531
discharge order was correct. Shri Balbir
Singh challenged the order of discharge
on the basis of the averments contained
therein as well as in the order of the
Deputy Inspector General of Police. The
Hon'ble Apex Court upholding the
aforesaid order of discharge held as
under;-
"In the present case, order of
termination cannot be held to be punitive
in nature. The misconduct on behalf of the
respondent was not the inducing factor
for the termination of the respondent. The
preliminary enquiry was not done with the
object of finding out any misconduct on
the part of the respondent, it was done
only with a view to determine the
suitability of the respondent within the
meaning of Punjab Police Rule 12.21. The
termination was not founded on the
misconduct but the misbehaviour with a
lady constable and consumption of liquor
in office were considered to determine the
suitability of the respondent for the job, in
the light of the standards of discipline
expected from police personnel."
26. The term 'stigma' has to be
understood in its plain meaning as
something that is detraction from the
character or reputation of a person. It is
blemish, imputation, a mark or label
indicating a deviation from a norm The
assessment of work and performance and
recording of satisfaction of the authority
concerned that he is not satisfied with the
work and performance regarding fitness
of the employee concerned would not
make the order stigmatic since it is not a
blemish on the character and reputation of
the person concerned but it reflects on the
capacity and efficiency of the incumbent
with respect to the work for which he/she
was employed.
27. It has been held in various
judgments rendered by the Supreme Court
that reasons assigned in the termination
order, at times may not be punitive or
stigmatic, the following words/phrases
mentioned in the order have been held to
be not punitive.
i.)"want of application'
ii.)"lack of potential"
iii.)"found not dependable"
iv.)"under suspension"
v.)"work is unsatisfactory"
vi.)"unlikely to prove an efficient
officer"
(Refer: Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs.
Saytendra Nath Bose National Centre for
Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others
(1999) 3 SCC 60, Paras Nath Pandey vs.
Director, North Central Zone, Cultural
Centre, Nyay Marg, Allahabad (2009) 1
UPlBEC 274)
28. Considering the facts of the case,
in the light of the legal principles,
discussed herein above, I am of the view
that the impugned order of termination is
nothing but punitive and stigmatic,
therefore, cannot be sustained.
29. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated
27.8.2011 passed by Regional Manager,
State Bank of India is quashed. The
petitioner
shall
be
entitled
for
reinstatement
with
all
consequential
benefits but with respect to arrears of
salary, he will be paid 50% of the
backwages for the period he remained out
of employment pursuant to impugned
order of termination. It goes without
saying that this judgment shall not prevent
to the respondents from proceedings
afresh against the petitioner and pass a
fresh order in accordance with law.
1532
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57930 of 2013
Self
Finance
Colleges
Welfare
Association, Bijnor & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri V.K. Singh, Sri D.K. Singh, Sri
Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vivek Saran, Sri Vivek Varma
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
Petition-filed
by
Association
of
self
financed
institution
affiliated
to
MJP
Ruhilkhand University-challenges decision
of executive council-charging development
fee-in absence of any statutory provisiondiscrimination in charging development
fee from un-aided institution
-without
rational basis-held-petition by registered
association-maintainable.
Held: Para-3 & 5
3.
The petitioner, being a registered
society, is a juristic person. It has filed the
present writ petition on behalf of its
members,
which
are
Self
Financed
Colleges, affiliated to the respondent
university. The representatives of the 12
institutions, details of which have been
given in para nos. 4 & 5 of the
supplementary affidavit, are the members
of the committee of management of the
petitioner
institution.
Sri
G.K.
Singh,
learned Senior Advocate, has also made a
statement that member institutions of the
petitioner undertake to be bound by the
outcome of the present writ proceedings.
In view of the above, I am of the opinion
that the petitioner association is entitled
to maintain the present writ petition on
behalf of its member self financed
colleges.
5. In such view of the matter, I am of
the opinion that the petitioner is entitled
to maintain the present writ petition in
respect of the grievance raised, and the
objections raised with regard to its
maintainability is consequently rejected.
Case Law discussed:
1996 (7) SCC 29
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)
1.
Petitioner is an association of Self
Financed Colleges, affiliated to M.J.P.
Ruhilkhand University, Bareilly and has got
itself registered as a society under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. Clause-12
of its bye-laws permits the society to institute
legal proceedings on its behalf. It has filed
the present writ petition challenging the
decision taken by the Executive Council in
its meeting dated 2.11.2011 and 27.2.2013,
as intimated in the communication/order of
the Registrar dated 15.7.2013, insofar as a
demand of development fee @ Rs. 500/- per
student has been levied from the Self
Financed institutions.
2. At the very outset, Sri Vivek Verma,
learned counsel appearing for the University,
has raised a preliminary objection with
regard to the maintainability of the writ
petition on the ground that petitioner has no
locus to maintain the writ petition as it is not
a person aggrieved and no student, who
alone could have complained, has actually
raised an issue and the writ petition,
therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
3. The petitioner, being a registered
society, is a juristic person. It has filed the