# Ram Chandra & Ors. 1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1213
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-09-20
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 5480 of 2013
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-chandra-ors-1214-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42660
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Writ of
mandamus-seeking
direction
to
commission to first verify the document
of eligibility as well as other required
certification-then
held
written
examination-held
unless
procedure
adopted by authority found arbitrary or
illegal or against known principle of fair
policy-court should refrain to interfere-if
petitioner participate in written as well
as short hand examination and qualifytheir document shall be checked before
permitting in computer test-no prejudice
going to caused-relief prayed for can not
be granted.

Held: Para-21
In the instant case, as per the facts
stated hereinabove, the O.P.No. 2/U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
on
03.09.2012 in view clause-1 of the
advertisement
is
entitled
to
hold
competitive examination as per the
advertisement dated 03.09.2013 issued
by the competent authority to hold
competitive examination for
General
Knowledge and General Hindi and the
candidates,
so
this
Court
while
exercising
power
of
judicial review
cannot interfere in the said exercise to
be conducted by the O.P.No. 2 as it is
settled proposition of law that if a
decision is being taken by a selecting
body for conducting an exercise in order
to select a candidate as per the terms of
the advertisement then by way of
judicial review there is a very limited
scope
to
interfere
in
the
exercise
adopted by the selecting body/ O.P.No. 2
and on very limited grounds, such as,
illegality or patent irregularity in the
Constitution
of
the
committee
or
violation of the procedure of selection or
established
mala
fide
affecting
the
selection
on
the
basis
of
which
interference can be made.

Case Law discussed:
(1990) 2 SCC 669; 2009(5) SCC 1; AIR 1990
SC 535; 1993 (2) SLR 805; (2003) 9 SCC 401;
2009(5) SCC 1; (1990) 2 SCC 669; (2007) 4
SCC 54

## Text

3 All] Ram Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1213
orders purported to have been passed by
Consolidation Officers in the long past so
that they may not be compared with the
original revenue record showing the land
as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue
records had been weeded out. Similar
may have been the practice in other
States. The time has now come to review
all these orders by which the common
village land has been grabbed by such
fraudulent practices."

In Dina Nath Vs. State of U.P. 2009
(108) R.D. 321, I held that not making
any efforts for getting the name of the
petitioner entered in the revenue records on
the basis of alleged patta by Gaon Sabha for
29 years proved that no patta was executed. I
issued directions to all the Collectors to
reopen all such cases where names of private
persons were entered in the revenue records
over Gaon Sabha land. Matter was carried to
the Supreme Court in the form of S.L.P.
(Civil) C.C.4398 of 2010 Dina Nath Vs.
State. The Supreme Court decided the matter
on 29.03.2010 and quoted almost my entire
judgment in inverted commas and approved
the same.

Accordingly, it is held that whenever a
person comes along with the case that Gaon
Sabha land was allotted to him or some order
was passed by any Court in his favour
declaring his right over Gaon Sabha land or
some revenue entry was in his favour long
before but during last several years his name
is not recorded in the revenue records then an
irrebuttable presumption amounting to almost
conclusive proof must be drawn to the effect
that allotment order or entry is forged."

4. Accordingly, it is directed that in
case petitioner is in possession of the
Gaon Sabha land, he must forthwith be
dispossessed. No further proceedings in
respect of entry of the name of petitioner
shall be taken as no patta was granted in
1975-76 to the petitioner. Exercising
powers under Article 227 of Constitution
of
India
mutation
order
dated
27(28).06.2008
is
set
aside.
Any
proceeding pending anywhere in respect
of the said plots before any of the courts
below shall not be proceeded with. Writ
of prohibition in this regard is issued.

5. For the period for which
petitioner has illegally remained in
possession, damages at the rate of
Rs.7000/- per hectare per year shall also
be recovered from him like arrears of land
revenue.

6. Disciplinary proceedings against
the Tehsildar who passed the order dated
27(28).06.2008 shall at once be initiated
after suspension.

7. Writ Petition is disposed of
accordingly.

8. Office is directed to supply a copy
of this order free of cost to Sri Vinay
Bhushan, learned Additional C.S.C. and
Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for Gaon
Sabha respondent No.5.

9. Office shall also send copy of this
order to the Chief Revenue Officer
(C.R.O.), Sultanpur.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 5480 of 2013

Ram Chandra & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.S. Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rajneesh Kumar

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Writ of
mandamus-seeking
direction
to
commission to first verify the document
of eligibility as well as other required
certification-then
held
written
examination-held
unless
procedure
adopted by authority found arbitrary or
illegal or against known principle of fair
policy-court should refrain to interfere-if
petitioner participate in written as well
as short hand examination and qualifytheir document shall be checked before
permitting in computer test-no prejudice
going to caused-relief prayed for can not
be granted.

Held: Para-21
In the instant case, as per the facts
stated hereinabove, the O.P.No. 2/U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
on
03.09.2012 in view clause-1 of the
advertisement
is
entitled
to
hold
competitive examination as per the
advertisement dated 03.09.2013 issued
by the competent authority to hold
competitive examination for
General
Knowledge and General Hindi and the
candidates,
so
this
Court
while
exercising
power
of
judicial review
cannot interfere in the said exercise to
be conducted by the O.P.No. 2 as it is
settled proposition of law that if a
decision is being taken by a selecting
body for conducting an exercise in order
to select a candidate as per the terms of
the advertisement then by way of
judicial review there is a very limited
scope
to
interfere
in
the
exercise
adopted by the selecting body/ O.P.No. 2
and on very limited grounds, such as,
illegality or patent irregularity in the
Constitution
of
the
committee
or
violation of the procedure of selection or
established
mala
fide
affecting
the
selection
on
the
basis
of
which
interference can be made.

Case Law discussed:
(1990) 2 SCC 669; 2009(5) SCC 1; AIR 1990
SC 535; 1993 (2) SLR 805; (2003) 9 SCC 401;
2009(5) SCC 1; (1990) 2 SCC 669; (2007) 4
SCC 54

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar , J.)

1. Heard Sri H.S. Jain, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj
Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel
and
Sri
Rajneesh
Kumar,
Advocate, appearing on behalf of opposite
party No.2.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner prayed for a
direction
to
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission/ Opposite Party No.2 to
scrutinize all the applications received
against the Advertisement No. A-5/E1/2010 dated 25.12.2010, thereafter only
those candidates who possess the requisite
academic qualification as per the terms of
the advertisement may be allowed to
appear
in
the
written
examination
schedule to take place on 22.09.2013.

3. Sri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for
the petitioners in order to press the above
said relief submits that an advertisement
has been issued by the opposite party
No.2 for appointment on the post of
Additional Private Secretary in U.P.
Secretariat, in response to the same the
petitioners and other candidates had
submitted their applications.

4.

On
03.09.2013
a
Notification/advertisement has been issued by
the Competent Authority (copy of which is
annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ
3 All] Ram Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1215
petition) calling the candidates for appearing
in a written test of General Knowledge (in
first session) and General Hindi (in second
session) as per the tests and schedule
mentioned therien.

5. He further submits that the said
exercise done by respondent No. 2 is
illegal and arbitrary rather contrary to the
terms as provided in Clause 5 of the
Advertisement.

6. The said clause has been
reproduced in English in paragraph No.3
of the writ petition, quoted herein below:-

"That in para 5 of the advertisement
the Commission has declared that a
candidate must have a minimum speed of
eighty words per minute and twenty five
words per minute in Hindi shorthand and
Hindi typewriting respectively,

and

further that the candidate must
possess the knowledge of compute in
accordance with the course prescribed for
Certificate Course in Computing (CCC)
conducted by DOEACC society or the
course conducted by the Board of High
School and Intermediate Education, U.P.
or a course recognized by the Government
as equivalent thereto.

It is relevant to point out that in the
note
appended
to
para-8
of
the
advertisement the Commission has clearly
mentioned that a candidate must annex
requisite
certificates
along
with
application from failing which his/her
candidature will be rejected."

7. Accordingly, Sri H.S. Jain,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that a mandatory duty has been casted
upon the opposite party No.2/ U.P. Public
Service Commission as per Clause 5 of
the advertisement to scrutinize all the
forms received by it, in pursuance of the
advertisement and only those candidates
who possess the qualification/Certificate
Course in Computing (CCC) conducted
by DOEACC society or the course
conducted by the Board of High School
and Intermediate Education, U.P. or a
course recognized by the Government as
equivalent thereto may be called for
written examination schedule to take
place on 22 September.2013. As the said
exercise has not been done in the present
case, so the opposite party No. 2 may be
directed to do the said exercise first,
thereafter proceed to hold the written
examination which is schedule to take
place on 22.09.2013, as per the Rule 8 of
the U.P. Secretariat Personal Assistant
Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2005
read with Rule 15(3) of the Uttar Pradesh
Secretariat Personal Assistant Service
Rules, 2001

8. In support of his argument Sri
H.S. Jain has placed reliance on the
argument
as
raised
by
following
judgment:-

1. A.P. Public Service Commission,
Hyderabad and another Vs. B. Sarat
Chandra and others (1990) 2 SCC, 669,

2. Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union
of India and others (2007) 4SCC54,

9. Sri Rajneesh Kumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.No. 2
on the basis of instructions received to
him submits that an advertisement No. A5/E-1/2010 dated 25.12.2010 has been
issued by the U.P. Public Service
Commission and as per Clause-1 of the
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
said adverisement, the O.P.No. 2 has to
conduct the competitive examination for
the purpose of appointment on the post of
Additional Private Secretaries in U.P.
Secretariat, so keeping in view the said
fact,
notification/advervisement
dated
03.09.2013 has been issued for holding a
written examination on 22.09.2013 for
General Knowledge and General Hindi as
per the the fact/scheduled mentioned
therein.

10. He further submits that the
candidates who have appeared in the said
examination, thereafter have to appear in
Shorthand and Hindi Typing Test, and
they should pass/qualify the same as per
the terms as mentioned in Clause 5 of the
advertisement and those candidates who
have passed/qualify the Shorthand Typing
Test only will be allowed to appear in the
Computer Test after verification of the
requisite certificates etc. as per the terms
of the advertisement and Rules which
governs the field. Lastly, on the basis of
marks obtained by the candidates in the
abvoesaid exercise will be calculated and
accordingly a merit-list will be prepared
on the basis of the same appointment will
be made on the post of Additional Private
Secretaries.

11. Sri Rajnish Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of O.P.No. 2 further
submits that so far as the argument advanced
by learned counsel for petitioner that the O.P.
No. 2 should scrutinize the candidates as per
the Clause 5(3) (a) of the advertizement prior
to appearing in the written test scheduled to
take place on 22.09.2013, whether they
possess the course prescribed for Certificate
Course in Computing (CCC) conducted by
DOEACC society is not a correct argument
because the said exercise will be done as per
Clause 11(8) of the advertizement only after
the candidates who have appeared in the
written examination scheduled to take place
on 22.09.2013 as well as passed in the typing
and shorthand test, computer examination as
per
the
terms
of
clause-5
of
the
advertisement.

12. Sri Rajneesh Kumar, learned
counsel for O.P.No. 2 submits that all the
petitioners along with other candidates
have been called for, to appear in the
written examination scheduled to take
place on 22.09.2013, so no prejudice is
caused to them by the said examination,
and as the said procedure is within the
domain of O.P. No. 2 in accordance with
with the terms of advertisement/Rules,
hence, the relief as claimed by them at
this stage, is premature in view of the law
as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court
in the case of Andhra Pradesh Public
Service
Commission
Vs.
Baloji
Badhvath and others, 2009 (5) SCC 1
by which the Public Service Commission
is free to adopt the procedure for selection
in terms of the advertisement, thus, writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and gone through the record.

14. The object of any process of
selection for entry into public service is to
secure the best and the most suitable
person for the job, avoiding patronage and
favoritism. Selection based on merit,
tested impartially and objectively, is the
essential foundation of any useful and
efficient
public
service.
So,
open
competitive examination has come to be
accepted
almost
universally
as
the
gateway to public services.

15. The term 'Recruitment", as is
used in Article 309 of the Constitution of
3 All] Ram Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1217
India is a comprehensive term and not
restricted to its etymological meaning.
'Recruitment/Selection' is said to be just
an initial process, which may lead to an
eventual appointment in the service, and
for
recruitment/selection
to
public
employment may take the form of
selection or contract. There may or may
not exist a pre-existing set of rules for
recruitment/selection. In absence of such
a rule the recruitment, in whatever
method made, are none the less regular.

16. However, when there are
prescribed rules, they should be followed
to create a valid and legal relationship.
Their infractions do not give any
justiciable right. As one of the principal
objects of the State is to generate
opportunities
for
employment.
Such
opportunities must be equally available
the mode of direct recruitment by
selection from the open employment
market following a method of competition
among
contending
candidates.
This
process of selection by open competition
ensures that only the best available
candidate are recruited for public process.
Competition also checks mal-practice and
nepotism to a great extent.

17. Thus recruitment/selection to
any service or post. Competent Authority
shall be free to decide upon the mode and
methods to be applied for. As long as
there is open competition among the
eligible
candidates
following
the
provisions of the recruitment rules,
fairness in recruitment is presumed.
Courts and Tribunals would obviously be
slow to interfere as it would require
details to support an allegations of mala
fide. Onus on the person making such
allegations is heavy. As held by Hon'ble
the Apex Court with the case of State of
Andhra Pradesh v V. Sadanandam AIR
1985 SC 2060 that it is exclusively within
the domain of the executive to decide
upon the mode of recruitment/selection
and
the category
from
which
the
recruitment to a Service should be made.
The relevant portion is quoted under:-

"We need only point out that the
mode of recruitment/selection and the
category from which the recruitment to a
service should be made are all matters
which are exclusively within the domain
of the executive. It is not for judicial
bodies to sit in judgment over the wisdom
of the executive in choosing the mode of
recruitment/selection or the categories
from which the recruitment should be
made, as they are matters of policy
decision failing exclusively within the
purviews of the executive. As already
stated, the question of filling up of posts
by persons belonging to other local
categories or zones is a matter of
administrative necessity and exigency.
When the Rules provided for such
benefits being effected and when the
transfer are not assailed on the ground of
arbitrariness or discrimination, the policy
of transfer adopted by the government
cannot be struck down by Tribunal or
courts of law."

18. The Constitution of India provides
for establishment of the Union Public Service
Commission and a State Public Service
Commission for each of the States. These
constitutional
bodies
have
their
own
jurisdictions clearly earmarked, Generally,
their primary function is to conduct written
competitive examinations, as well as, viva
voce
tests
for
preparation
of
Select
Lists/Panels or meritorious candidate. Besides,
they are consulted in all matter relating to
public appointments.
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The advertisement issued by the
Public Service Commission or State
Public Service Commission for selection
process comprises of several stages. The
process initiates with the issuance of the
notification for recruitment and ends with
the
preparation
of
select
list
for
appointment. Indeed, it contains various
steps
from
notifying
vacancies
to
preparation
of
list
of
successful
candidates for appointment. Although a
candidate does not get indefeasible right
until appointed.

20. Accordingly, it can be said that
the recruitment/selection process, the
advertisement for recruitment contain
various restrictions and contain several
instructions.
They
are
deliberately
introduced and are not idle formalities.
These have otherwise great advantages.
Some of them are of substantive nature
with potentiality to curb or eliminate
chances for malpractice. As selection has
always
been
considered
as
an
administrative
function
and
the
administrative authority is regarded the
best judge for it. It is the administrative
authority that carries out the policy of the
State as Public appointments are made to
suit
the
administrator's
purpose
by
appointing those who is considers the best
among the available candidates. As long
as the function of such authority is within
the law, courts will be slow to interfere;
rather it has no business to interfere.
Court could not assess comparative merits
in selection and set aside appointments.
The Court does not also function as an
appellate forum in selection matters.

21. In the instant case, as per the facts
stated hereinabove, the O.P.No. 2/U.P.
Public Service Commission on 03.09.2012 in
view clause-1 of the advertisement is entitled
to hold competitive examination as per the
advertisement dated 03.09.2013 issued by
the competent authority to hold competitive
examination for General Knowledge and
General Hindi and the candidates, so this
Court while exercising power of judicial
review cannot interfere in the said exercise to
be conducted by the O.P.No. 2 as it is settled
proposition of law that if a decision is being
taken by a selecting body for conducting an
exercise in order to select a candidate as per
the terms of the advertisement then by way
of judicial review there is a very limited
scope to interfere in the exercise adopted by
the selecting body/ O.P.No. 2 and on very
limited grounds, such as, illegality or patent
irregularity in the Constitution of the
committee or violation of the procedure of
selection or established mala fide affecting
the selection on the basis of which
interference can be made. The said position
doe not exist in the present case (See. Dalpat
Abasaheb Solunke V (Dr.) BS Mahajan
AIR 1990 SC 535). Accordingly, this Court
while exercising power of judicial review
cannot encroach upon the power of the U.P.
Public Service Commission/O.P.No. 2 in
respect to procedure adopted by it for the
purpose of selection/appointment on the post
of Additional Private Secretaries as per the
terms of the advertisement by substituting its
own views and opinion (See. SL Vohra V.
Union of India 1993 (2)SLR 805 and Vijoy
Syal V. state of Punjab (2003)9 SCC 401).

22. So, the relief as claimed by the
petitioners to restrain the O.P.No. 2 from
conducting
competitive
written
examination in respect to the General
Knowledge
and
General
Hindi
on
22.09.2013 cannot be granted as the same
is as per the notification dated 03.09.2013
and in accordance with the terms of the
advertisement specially clause -1 & 5 read
with sub-clause-8 of Clause-11 and as per
3 All] Ram Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1219
the law laid down by Honble the Apex
Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh
Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji
Badhvath and others, 2009 (5) SCC 1,
held as under:-

"Para No. 25 - How the Commission
would judge the merit of the candidates is
its function. Unless the procedure adopted
by it is held to be arbitrary or against the
known principles of fair play, the superior
courts would not ordinarily interfere
therewith. The State framed Rules in the
light of the decision of the High Court in
S. Jafeer Saheb (supra). Per se, it did not
commit any illegality. The correctness of
the said decision, as noticed hereinbefore,
is not in question having attained finality.
The matter, however, would be different
if the said rules per se are found to be
violative of Article 16 of the Constitution
of India. Nobody has any fundamental
right to be appointed in terms of Article
16 of the Constitution of India. It merely
provides for a right to be considered
therefor. A procedure evolved for laying
down
the
mode
and
manner
for
consideration of such a right can be
interfered with only when it is arbitrary,
discriminatory or wholly unfair."

23. Further, in the case of A.P.
Public Service Commission, Hyderabad
and Another Vs. B. Sarat Chandra and
others
(1990)
2
SCC
669
while
interpreting the Hon'ble Apex Court held
as under:-

"If the word 'selection' is understood
ion a sense meaning thereby only the final
act
of
selecting
candidates
with
preparation of the list for appointment,
then the conclusion of the Tribunal may
not be unjustified. But round phrases
cannot give square answers. Before
accepting that meaning, we must see the
consequences,anomalies and uncertainties
that it may lead to. The Tribunal in fact
does not dispute that the process of
selection begins with the issuance of
advertisement
and
ends
with
the
preparation of select list for appointment.
Indeed, it consists of various steps like
inviting
applications,
scrutiny
of
applications,
rejection
of
defective
applications or elimination of ineligible
candidates,
conducting
examinations,
calling for interview or viva voce and
preparation
of
list
of
successful
candidates for appointment.

24. In the case of Ashok Kumar
Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others
(2007) 4 SCC 54 Hon'ble the Apex Court
in paragraph 14 at page 63 (relevant
portion quoted is held as under) :

"A person who acquires the prescribed
qualification subsequent to such prescribed
date cannot be considered at all. An
advertisement
or
notification
issued/published calling for application
constituted a representation to the public and
the authority issuing it is bound by such
representation. It cannot act contrary to it.
One reason behind this proposition is that if
it were known that persons who obtained the
qualifications after the prescribed date but
before the date of interview would be
allowed to appear for the interview, other
similarly
placed
persons
had
applied
notwithstanding that they had not acquired
the
prescribed
qualifications
by
the
prescribed date, they could not have been
rejected at the inception itself."

25. Accordingly, keeping in view the
law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court
in the case of B. Sarat Chandra (Supra)
and Ashok Kumar Sonkar(Supra) there is
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no legal impediment or any infringement of
the terms of the advertisement on the part of
U.P. Public Service Commission/O.P.No. 2
in conducting the written examination to be
held on 22.09.2013 for General Knowledge
and General Hindi, when admittedly all the
petitioners are allowed to appear in the said
examination and no prejudice is caused to the
petitioners on the part of O.P.No. 2 for
conducting the written examination on
22.09.2013.

26. For the foregoing reasons, writ
petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J.

Service Single No. 6994 of 2009.

Naimuddin Khan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri N.C. Mehrotra

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Major
punishment-on basis of reply after show
cause notice-without fixing date time and
place for enquiry-even in ex-parte enquiry
without
examing
the
witness-without
proving
the
documents-relying
for
punishment-held-not
sustainable-order
passed by both authorities-quashed.

Held: Para-8
It is not disputed at bar that department
has not examined any of the witness to
prove the charges levelled against the
petitioner and also the document relied
upon by the department were not proved
by adducing any witness. The inquiry
report reveals that no date, time and
place of conducting the inquiry was
mentioned in the report and the Enquiry
Officer straightway on the basis of the
reply of the petitioner submitted the
report before the competent authority.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 2010 (10) SCC 3131

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Chandra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.C.
Mehrotra,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents no.2 to 4 and Chaudhary
Shatrughan, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondent no.1.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order by which major punishment has
been awarded to him after conducting
inquiry for the charges levelled against
him.
The
punishment
awarded
are
mentioned in the order dated 12.02.2007
(Annexure 1 to the writ petition). The
appeal preferred against that order was
also dismissed by the State Government
vide its order dated 31.07.2009 (Annexure
2 to the writ petition) communicated to
the petitioner by letter dated 21.08.2009.
Both these orders are sought to be
quashed in this writ petition.

3. The relevant facts for deciding the
present writ petition are that petitionerNaimuddin
Khan
was
working
as
Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad
at the relevant time. Certain irregularities
were found against him while working as
Secretary.
On
account
of
which
departmental proceedings were initiated.
The Regional Deputy Director, Rajya
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P.,