# Ram Dinesh Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** Writ-A No. 17620 of 2008
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-17
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 17620 of 2008
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-dinesh-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46286
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 226 -
administrative
action
suffering
from
illegality,
irrationality
and
procedural
impropriety are subject to judicial review

Writ Petition rejected.(E-10)

List of cases cited:

## Text

3-5 All. Ram Dinesh Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1001
fact the Second Petition, i.e., Writ Petition
No. 11177 of 2017 stands infructuous and
is dismissed accordingly.
----------

(2020)03-05ILR A1001
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 17620 of 2008

Ram Dinesh Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri P.K. Upadhyay, Sri Ratnesh Kumar
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad

Constitution of India- Article 226 -
administrative
action
suffering
from
illegality,
irrationality
and
procedural
impropriety are subject to judicial review

Writ Petition rejected.(E-10)

List of cases cited:

1. Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) Vs.
Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935

2. Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim & ors. AIR
1984 SC 38

3. Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas
Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245

4. U.O.I. Vs. Rajendra Prabhu (2001) 4 SCC 472

5. Tata Cellular Vs. U.O.I. (1994) 6 SCC 651
6. Heinz India Private Ltd. & anr. Vs. St. of U.P.
& ors. (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 443

7. Reid Vs. Secy. Of St. for Scotland (1999) 1
ALL ER 481 (HL)

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. By means of present writ petition,
petitioners have prayed for quashing of the
impugned order dated 26.12.2007 passed
by respondent no.3/Director of Education
(Basic), U.P. at Allahabad.

3. Facts, in brief, of the present case
are that in the city of Fatehpur, there is an
Institution known as Thawaishwar Purva
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Thawai, Fatehpur
(in short 'Institution') is a recognized Basic
Junior High School from the State of U.P
under U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972.

4. As per the case of the petitioners,
on 12.02.1989 three vacancies for the post
of Peon was advertised in the Local
Newspaper (Dainik Varta) of District
Fatehpur by the Principal/ Manager of the
Institution.
In
pursuance
of
said
advertisement, petitioners were appointed
by order dated 01.07.1989 issued by the
Manager of the Institution, as contained in
annexure no.3 to the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that since the date of their joining,
the petitioners were performing their duties
regularly on the post of Peon. When the
Institution has been brought under grant-inaid list on 01.12.2006, the petitioners were
under the impression that their names were
sent by the Manager of the Institution to the
respondent no.4. It came to the knowledge
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the petitioners that their names are not in
the grant-in- aid list, they submitted their
representations to the competent authority.
When the representations of the petitioners
were not dicided of by competent authority,
they approached this Court by filing Writ
Petition No.46761 of 2007 (Ram Dinesh
Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and
others) which was disposed of by means of
order dated 25.09.2007, the same on
reproduction reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel and Sri Suresh Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.

Petitioners allege to have been
appointed as Peon in a Junior High
School in the year 1989. It is further
stated that at the time the petitioners
were appointed, the institution was
recognized as a Junior High School by
the Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., at
Allahabad. It is claimed that they have
been
continuously
working
in
the
institution.

A
news
item
has
been
published
whereby
the
State
Government has taken a decision to
bring large number of recognized
Junior High Schools within the grantin-aid list. Because of such application,
the Management of the institution with
an ulterior motive to engage its own
men, has started to modify/alter the
managers' return, inasmuch as teacher
whose names find mention in the
managers' return would become entitled
for payment of salary under grant-inaid list by the State Government.

At
this
stage
of
the
proceedings,
the
petitioner
have
approached this Court for a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents
not to alter/modify the managers' return
as well as not to interfere in the
function of the petitioner as Peon.

Large number of writ petitions
for practically the same relief and with
same allegations, are being filed before
this Court every day. It is desirable that
the State Government/ Director of
Education ( Basic) U.P. Lucknow, may,
therefore, issue necessary directions for
ensuring;

(a) That teachers, who have
been validly appointed in recognized
Junior High Schools are not adversely
affected because of deliberate arbitrary
actions of the Management of the
Institution, as which are to be taken in
the
grant-in-aid
list
of
the
State
Government.

(b) The right of the teachers, who
are validly appointed since prior to the
date institution is taken on the grant-in-aid
list against sanctioned post is to be
protected in accordance with law. For the
said purpose, it is necessary that the
authority competent to sanction salary bills
for payment of salary to such teachers,
amongst others must enquire as to whether
the appointment of the teachers/head
masters concerned has been made in strict
compliance of the U.P. Recognized Basic
School (Junior High School) (Recruitment)
and Conditions of Service of Teachers)
Rules, 1978 or not, inasmuch as once the
institution is granted recognition as Junior
High School
under
the
U.P. Basic
Education Act. The aforesaid prevision
became applicable to the institution. The
authority must record specific findings
individualy in respect of such teachers, who
are entitled for payment of salary through
the public exchequer.

Let the Director of Education,
(Basic) U.P. Lucknow take appropriate
action as aforesaid, with intimation to the
Basic Shiksha Parishad, preferably within
3-5 All. Ram Dinesh Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1003
six weeks from the date a certified copy of
this order is filed before him.

With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, this writ petition is
finally disposed of."

6. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioners that in pursuance of the
aforesaid order, opposite party
no.3/
Director of Education (Basic) U.P. at
Lucknow has passed the impugned order
dated 26.12.2007.

7. Accordingly, a query has been put
to learned counsel for the petitioner to
show in the writ petition on the basis of
pleading whether the appointment of the
petitioners was made as per rules or not.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has failed to show any averment by way of
pleading in the writ petition that their initial
appointment on the post of Peon in the
Institution by the Manager were as per the
Rules which governs the field.

9. Thus taking into consideration the
said facts as well as reasoning given in the
impugned order dated 26.12.2007 passed
by opposite party no.3/ Director of
Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow while
rejecting the claim of the petitioners that
their names were not mentioned in the
attendance register and the photocopy of
the attendance register which has been
given by the petitioner no.1 available in the
institution/ college and their appointment
orders were also not available in the record
of the institution/ college and on the basis
of the same, it is clearly established that the
petitioners
are
not
working
in
the
institution/
college,
accordingly
the
representation of the petitioners have been
rejected . So no interference is needed in
the matter in question while exercising the
power of judicial review under Article 226
of the Constitution of India as in the case of
Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) v.
Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All
ER 935, the scope of judicial review has
been held by Lord Diplock is stated as
under:-

"Judicial Review has I think
developed to a stage today when, without
reiterating any analysis of the steps by
which the development has come about,
one can conveniently classify under three
heads the grounds on which administrative
action is subject to control by judicial
review. The first ground I would call
'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the
third 'procedural impropriety'.

By 'illegality' as a ground for
judicial review I mean that the decisionmaker must understand correctly the law
that regulates his decision-making power
and must give effect to it. Whether he has
or not is par excellence a justiciable
question to be decided, in the event of
dispute, by those persons, the judges, by
whom the judicial power of the State is
exercisable.

By 'irrationality' I mean what can
by now be succinctly referred to as
'Wednesbury unreasonableness'. It applies
to a decision which is so outrageous in its
defiance of logic or of accepted moral
standards that no sensible person who had
applied his mind to the question to be
decided could have arrived at it. Whether a
decision falls within this category is a
question that judges by their training and
experience should be well equipped to
answer or else there would be something
badly wrong with our judicial system...

I have described the third head as
'procedural impropriety' rather than failure
to observe basic rules of natural justice or
failure to act with procedural fairness
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
towards the person who will be affected by
the decision. This is because susceptibility
to judicial review under this head covers
also failure by an administrative tribunal to
observe procedural rules that are expressly
laid down in the legislative instrument by
which its jurisdiction is conferred, even
where such failure does not involve any
denial of natural justice."

10. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim
and Ors., AIR 1984 SC 38 Hon'ble the
Apex Court held that there is a very limited
scope under Article 226 of the Constitution
and even the errors of law cannot be
corrected in exercise of power of judicial
review
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution. The power can be used
sparingly when it comes to the conclusion
that the Authority/ Tribunal has exceeded
its
jurisdiction
or
proceeded
under
erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. The
High Court cannot assume unlimited
prerogative to correct all species of
hardship
or
wrong
decision.
For
interference, there must be a case of
flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of
law or where order of the Tribunal, etc. has
resulted in grave injustice.

11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian
Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers'
Union (2000) 4 SCC 245, observed that it
is impermissible for the Writ Court to reappreciate evidence liberally and drawing
conclusions on its own on pure questions of
fact for the reason that it is not exercising
appellate jurisdiction over the awards
passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact
recorded by the fact finding authority duly
constituted for the purpose ordinarily
should be considered to have become final.
The same cannot be disturbed for the mere
reason of having based on materials or
evidence not sufficient or credible in the
opinion of Writ Court to warrant those
findings. At any rate, as long as they are
based upon some material which are
relevant for the purpose no interference is
called for. Even on the ground that there is
yet another view which can reasonably and
possibly be taken the High Court can not
interfere.

12. And in the case of Union of India
v. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472, it
has been held that the High Court in
exercise of its extraordinary powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot reappreciate the evidence nor it can substitute
its subjective opinion in place of the
findings of Authorities below.

13. Hon'ble the Apex Court has held
in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of
India (1994) 6 SCC 651, this Court
identified the grounds of judicial review of
administrative action in the following
words :

"The duty of the court is to
confine itself to the question of legality. Its
concern should be :

1. Whether a decision-making
authority exceeded its powers?

2. Committed an error of law,

3. committed a breach of the
rules of natural justice,

4. reached a decision which no
reasonable tribunal would have reached
or,

5. abused its powers.

Therefore, it is not for the court
to determine whether a particular policy or
particular decision taken in the fulfilment
of that policy is fair. It is only concerned
with the manner in which those decisions
have been taken. The extent of the duty to
3-5 All. Hari Shanker Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1005
act fairly will vary from case to case.
Shortly put, the grounds upon which an
administrative action is subject to control
by judicial review can be classified as
under :

(I) Illegality : This means the
decision-maker must understand correctly
the law that regulates his decision- making
power and must give effect to it.

(ii)
Irrationality,
namely,
Wednesbury unreasonableness.

(iii) Procedural impropriety."

14. Ho'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Heinz India Private Ltd. And
another vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2012)
5 Supreme Court Cases 443 after placing
the reliance on the judgment of Reid Vs.
Secy. Of State for Scotland (1999) 1 ALL
ER 481 (HL) held that Judicial review
involves a challenge to the legal validity of
the decision. It does not allow the court of
review to examine the evidence with a view
to forming its own view about the
substantial merits of the case. It may be that
the tribunal whose decision is being
challenged has done something which it
had no lawful authority to do. It may have
abused or misused the authority which it
had. It may have departed from the
procedures which either by statute or at
common law as a matter of fairness it ought
to have observed. As regards the decisions
itself it may be found to be perverse or
irrational or grossly disproportionate to
what was required. Or the decision may be
found to be erroneous in respect of a legal
deficiency, as for example, through the
absence of evidence, or of sufficient
evidence, to support it, or through account
being taken of irrelevant matter, or through
a failure for any reason to take account of a
relevant
matter,
or
through
some
misconstruction of the terms of the
statutory provision which the decision
maker is required to apply. But while the
evidence may have to be explored in order
to see if the decision is vitiated by such
legal deficiencies it is perfectly clear that in
case of review, as distinct from an ordinary
appeal, the court may not set about forming
its own preferred view of evidence.

15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ
petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

16. No order as to costs.
----------

(2020)03-05ILR A1005
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PARAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Writ A No. 25974 of 2018

Hari Shanker Sahu & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shantanu Khare, Sri Ashok Khare

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Sri Satyaveer
Singh

A. Civil Law-Education - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921- Chapter II, Appendix
"A" - Interpretation - Casus Omisus - A
Judge must not alter the material of which
the Act is woven, but he can and should
iron out the creases. (Para 12, 16)

It is not allowable to read words in a statute
which are not there, but where alternative lies
between either supplying by implication words
which appear to have been accidently omitted,
or adopting a construction which deprives