# Ramesh Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 846
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-09-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50894 of 2009
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41537
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Article-226Transfer U.P. Registration department(
District
Establishment)
ministerial
Service Rule 1978- Rule 28 read with
fundamental
Rule-Rule
15-Transfer
petitioner working Sub Registrar-IIITransferred from Gautam Buddhanagar
to Pilibhit-Transfer order challenged-on
ground
of
authority-instead
of
I.G.
Registration directly, state government
passed order-held-No bar order passed

## Text

846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
the Bar or for helping any office bearer of
the
Bar
Association.
Against
this
background we are of the view that it is
open for the Bar Council to take any
decision in accordance with law under
Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 if
at all the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is
not satisfied with any conduct of the
petitioner but not to act in the manner as it
has been done. It is further significant to
note that if there is no recording available
with regard to decision of 20.9.2009, then
the authority of the Bar Council of Uttar
Pradesh is also authorised to take legal
action against such person who has
committed such mistake. We are of the
view that no body is above law and
should not take law in his own hands to
subserve any purpose.

7. With the above observation, we
dispose of the writ petition by quashing
the notice dated 30.8.2009.

8. No order is passed as to cost.

However, it is open to the Bar
Council of Uttar Pradesh to proceed in
accordance with law.

So far as prayer no. ii and iii ( iii has
been written as ii twice) are concerned,
they are not pressed by the petitioner.
However, it is open for the petitioner to
proceed in accordance with law for such
prayer in some other proceeding.

Copy
of
communication
dated
29.9.2009 supplied by Sri Pankaj Naqvi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is kept on
record.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50894 of 2009

Ramesh Chandra Mishra
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.C. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India

Article-226Petitioner being senior most lecturer
surrender
his
right
of
officiating
Principal-by letter dated 4.5.07-can not
be allowed to put claim again being
senior most teacher-recital being full and
complete-No ambiguity-order impugned
denying to work as officiating principal-
held proper.

Held: Para 6

Having heard learned counsel for the
parties, I have carefully perused the
letter
dated
4.5.2007
which
clearly
demonstrates
that
the
petitioner
surrendered
and
resigned
from
the
duties as officiating Principal coupled
with a recital to the effect that he should
be continued and allowed to function as
Assistant Teacher in the institution. The
recital being full and complete, there is
no ambiguity in the same and as such
the contention advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
3 All] Ramesh Chandra Mishra V. State of U.P. and others
847
2. The contention advanced is that
the letter which was sent by the petitioner
on 4.5.2007 did not amount to a complete
surrender of the rights of the petitioner to
function as officiating Principal of the
institution.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the impugned orders dated
17.6.2009 and 1.10.2008 interfered with
the rights of the petitioner to function as
officiating Principal of the institution
inspite of the fact that the petitioner is the
senior most Teacher.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that in view of the aforesaid
position, it was not open to the
respondents to have denied the right
claimed by the petitioner to continue to
function inspite of the letter which has
been appended as Annexure-3.

5. Learned Standing Counsel Sri
K.K. Chand, on the other hand, contends
that the letter dated 4.5.2007 (Annexure3) is a voluntarily resignation tendered by
the petitioner himself. There is no dispute
about the contents, veracity and probity of
the said document. In view of this, since
the document is not under challenge, the
petitioner cannot now reclaim the post
inasmuch as he had already been
appointed as officiating Principal and, he
voluntarily surrendered his rights as such.
Sri Chand relies on the decision of Satya
Vir Singh Vs. District Inspector of
schools, Bulandshahr, and others, 1995
(25) ALR 139, to substantiate his
submission. Reference may be had to the
decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Jain
Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2
UPLBEC 1159.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, I have carefully perused the
letter dated 4.5.2007 which clearly
demonstrates
that
the
petitioner
surrendered and resigned from the duties
as officiating Principal coupled with a
recital to the effect that he should be
continued and allowed to function as
Assistant Teacher in the institution. The
recital being full and complete, there is no
ambiguity in the same and as such the
contention advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted.

7. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52133 of 2009

Satish Pal

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.R. Misra
Sri K.M. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Article-226Transfer U.P. Registration department(
District
Establishment)
ministerial
Service Rule 1978- Rule 28 read with
fundamental
Rule-Rule
15-Transfer
petitioner working Sub Registrar-IIITransferred from Gautam Buddhanagar
to Pilibhit-Transfer order challenged-on
ground
of
authority-instead
of
I.G.
Registration directly, state government
passed order-held-No bar order passed