# Sant Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 1212
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-24
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 470 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C. J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sant-lal-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49112
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Education Law - Election to Committee
of Management - Locus Standi - The writ
petitioner,
while
challenging
the
earlier
attestation of the fifth respondent's election held
by the Authorized Controller on 22.01.2018 vide
Writ-C No. 19219 of 2019, did not challenge the
order
dated
30.12.2017
passed
by
the
Authorized Controller, on the basis of which the
1 All. Sant Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1213
elections dated 22.01.2018 were held, wherein
the fifth respondent was elected. (Para 17)

The order of this Court dated 30.07.2019
passed in Writ-C No. 19219 of 2019 would show
that the order of attestation of signatures of the
fifth respondent alone dated 25.01.2018 (based
on the elections dated 22.01.2018) were alone
challenged. The order dated 30.12.2017,
which was the foundation of the elections
dated 22.01.2018 or the said elections
itself were never challenged by the writ
petitioner. The writ petition was not pressed
with liberty to move the Regional Level
Committee for relief. Thus, the order dated
30.12.2017
has
attained
finality
between
parties. It is in consequence of the decision
taken by the Regional Level Committee on the
writ petitioner's application that he made after
withdrawal of Writ-C No. 19291 of 2019 to the
Regional Level Committee, that the writ
petitioner
commenced
fresh
and
almost
collateral proceedings in the garb of assailing
the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the
Regional Level Committee. (Para 17)

B. Collateral Proceedings - In Writ-C No.
1285 of 2021, the writ petitioner challenged the
order of 03.02.2020 passed by the Regional
Level Committee and attempted to question the
order of the Authorized Controller dated
30.12.2017 that had already attained finality. It
is for the said reason that the learned Judge
while allowing the WP dated 08.02.2021,
permitted objections to be filed against the
order dated 30.12.2017, but expressed no
opinion on its validity. In fact, not much could
be said against the said order, either before this
Court or before the Authorized Controller,
except something very fundamental or on wider
ground.
The
Authorized
Controller
rightly
concluded that he had nothing to say on merits
against what was held by the Authorized
Controller earlier, vide order of 30.12.2017. The
order of 30.12.2017 had held that the writ
petition had no locus to question the
determination of the electoral college of
the Society or the College, because vide
order dated 03.03.2009, the Founder
Trustees
had
removed
32
members,
including
the
writ
petitioner,
from
membership of the Society in exercise of
powers under Clause 10(Gha) of the Bylaws
of
the
Society.
The
order
of
30.12.2017 further records the fact that
the order dated 03.03.2009 had never
been challenged before any forum, Court
or Authority and it was, thus, final. (Para
18)

Before the Authorized Controller, when the
matter came on a remit from the learned Single
Judge in terms of the judgment and order dated
08.02.2021 passed in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021,
the writ petitioner could not show anything that
may dispel the finding earlier recorded by the
Authorized
Controller
vide
order
dated
30.12.2017
to
the
effect
that
the
writ
petitioner's membership of the Society stood
terminated in terms of the order dated
03.03.2009, passed by the Founder Trustees,
under the By-laws of the Society. (Para 19)

Since the writ petitioner has apparently
lost his status as a member of the general
body of the Society, in terms of a
resolution of removal passed by the
Founder Trustees on 03.03.2009, which
has not been challenged anywhere, his
right to question the determination of the
electoral college is decidedly without any
right; or as the learned Single Judge says,
without locus standi. All this is about
consideration of the writ petitioner's case and it
is fallacious to say that there was anything else
to be considered by the Authorities at the
instance of the writ petitioner, relating to the
validity of the electoral

## Text

1212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the government to be unsustainable then
ordinarily a direction should be given to
the State Government or the authority
taking the decision to reconsider the matter
and pass a proper order. The court should
avoid giving a declaration granting a
particular scale of pay and compelling the
government to implement the same. As
noted earlier, in the present case 'the High
Court has not even made any attempt to
compare
the
nature
of
duties
and
responsibilities of the two sections of the
employees, one in the State Secretariat and
the other in the Central Secretariat. It has
also ignored the basic principle that there
are certain rules, regulations and executive
instructions issued by the employers which
govern the administration of the cadre."

16. In light of facts mentioned
hereinabove as well as law laid down by
Apex Court, this Court is of the view that
once the employer is same, mode of
recruitment, qualification for the post,
nature of work and other responsibilities
are same, such employees shall be
governed by principal of 'equal pay for
equal work', and there cannot be any denial
of similar pay scale on any ground.

17. In the present case, there is no
dispute on the point that mode of
recruitment of petitioners as well as
employees of Irrigation Department i.e.
generator operators is the same. Further,
they are having same nature of work i.e.
running generators over and above of 50
KVA. Their principal employer is also
same i.e. State Government having full
control over both the departments i.e. PWD
and Irrigation Department headed by
Principal Secretary.

18. Therefore, the writ petition is
allowed
and
impugned orders
dated
7.4.2011, 8.12.2010, 22.9.2009, 7.10.2010,
11.3.2011, 30.12.2011, 1.4.2012 are hereby
quashed. A writ of mandamus be issued to
the respondents to pay the same pay scale
i.e. Rs.4000-6000/- to the petitioners also
as given to generator operators of Irrigation
Department from the date on which it has
given to them.

19. They shall also be entitled for the
interest at the bank rate from due date to
the date of actual payment.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1212
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C. J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal No. 470 of 2021

Sant Lal Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha (Sr. Adv.), Sri
Shashank Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh(Sr. Adv.), Sri
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ramanand
Pandey (A.C.S.C.)

A. Education Law - Election to Committee
of Management - Locus Standi - The writ
petitioner,
while
challenging
the
earlier
attestation of the fifth respondent's election held
by the Authorized Controller on 22.01.2018 vide
Writ-C No. 19219 of 2019, did not challenge the
order
dated
30.12.2017
passed
by
the
Authorized Controller, on the basis of which the
1 All. Sant Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1213
elections dated 22.01.2018 were held, wherein
the fifth respondent was elected. (Para 17)

The order of this Court dated 30.07.2019
passed in Writ-C No. 19219 of 2019 would show
that the order of attestation of signatures of the
fifth respondent alone dated 25.01.2018 (based
on the elections dated 22.01.2018) were alone
challenged. The order dated 30.12.2017,
which was the foundation of the elections
dated 22.01.2018 or the said elections
itself were never challenged by the writ
petitioner. The writ petition was not pressed
with liberty to move the Regional Level
Committee for relief. Thus, the order dated
30.12.2017
has
attained
finality
between
parties. It is in consequence of the decision
taken by the Regional Level Committee on the
writ petitioner's application that he made after
withdrawal of Writ-C No. 19291 of 2019 to the
Regional Level Committee, that the writ
petitioner
commenced
fresh
and
almost
collateral proceedings in the garb of assailing
the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the
Regional Level Committee. (Para 17)

B. Collateral Proceedings - In Writ-C No.
1285 of 2021, the writ petitioner challenged the
order of 03.02.2020 passed by the Regional
Level Committee and attempted to question the
order of the Authorized Controller dated
30.12.2017 that had already attained finality. It
is for the said reason that the learned Judge
while allowing the WP dated 08.02.2021,
permitted objections to be filed against the
order dated 30.12.2017, but expressed no
opinion on its validity. In fact, not much could
be said against the said order, either before this
Court or before the Authorized Controller,
except something very fundamental or on wider
ground.
The
Authorized
Controller
rightly
concluded that he had nothing to say on merits
against what was held by the Authorized
Controller earlier, vide order of 30.12.2017. The
order of 30.12.2017 had held that the writ
petition had no locus to question the
determination of the electoral college of
the Society or the College, because vide
order dated 03.03.2009, the Founder
Trustees
had
removed
32
members,
including
the
writ
petitioner,
from
membership of the Society in exercise of
powers under Clause 10(Gha) of the Bylaws
of
the
Society.
The
order
of
30.12.2017 further records the fact that
the order dated 03.03.2009 had never
been challenged before any forum, Court
or Authority and it was, thus, final. (Para
18)

Before the Authorized Controller, when the
matter came on a remit from the learned Single
Judge in terms of the judgment and order dated
08.02.2021 passed in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021,
the writ petitioner could not show anything that
may dispel the finding earlier recorded by the
Authorized
Controller
vide
order
dated
30.12.2017
to
the
effect
that
the
writ
petitioner's membership of the Society stood
terminated in terms of the order dated
03.03.2009, passed by the Founder Trustees,
under the By-laws of the Society. (Para 19)

Since the writ petitioner has apparently
lost his status as a member of the general
body of the Society, in terms of a
resolution of removal passed by the
Founder Trustees on 03.03.2009, which
has not been challenged anywhere, his
right to question the determination of the
electoral college is decidedly without any
right; or as the learned Single Judge says,
without locus standi. All this is about
consideration of the writ petitioner's case and it
is fallacious to say that there was anything else
to be considered by the Authorities at the
instance of the writ petitioner, relating to the
validity of the electoral college, once the writ
petitioner's membership of the Society and a
fortiori the general body of the institution is
non-existent. (Para 19)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-4)
Present special appeal assails judgment
and order dated 16.11.2021, passed by
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Moin, J. in Writ
Petition No. 25754 of 2021.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This Special Appeal by the writ
petitioner is directed against an order of the
1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned Single Judge dated November 16,
2021, dismissing Writ-C No. 25754 of
2021. This appeal has been preferred by
Sant Lal Yadav, who claims to be the
elected Manager of the Committee of
Management of Sri Yadvesh Inter College,
Naupedwa, District Jaunpur.

2. The writ petitioner instituted WritC No. 25754 of 2021, challenging the order
of the Authorized Controller, Sri Yadvesh
Inter College dated March 24, 2021,
determining the electoral college for
holding elections to the Committee of
Management of the said College. He has
further challenged the consequential order
dated June 22, 2021 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, attesting the
signatures of respondent no.5 as the elected
Manager of the Institution pursuant to the
elections held in terms of the order dated
March 24, 2021 passed by the Authorized
Controller. The result of the elections
declared by the Authorized Controller on
June 14, 2021 has been questioned too.

3. Sri Yadvesh Inter College is a
recognized
Inter
College
under
the
provisions
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is in
receipt of Government grant-in-aid. The
aforesaid College, which shall hereinafter
be referred to as ''the College', has been
established and managed by a Society,
going by the name of Sri Yadvesh Vidya
Mandir Society, Naupedwa, a Society
registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. It appears to be common ground
between parties that Murli Dhar Yadav
functioned as the elected Manager of the
Committee of the Management of the
Society as well as the Manager of the
Committee of Management of the College
between 1974 to 2007. The writ petitionerappellant, Sant Lal Yadav is a son of Murli
Dhar Yadav and claims to be a life member
of the Society, entitling him to vote in the
elections of the Management of the College
and also stake his claim to office on the
Committee of Management of the College.

4. It appears that the elections to the
Committee of Management of the College,
that were held on September 6, 1998,
wherein again Murli Dhar Yadav was
elected, led to eruption of an election
dispute with the rival claim being staked in
the
year
1999.
Thereafter,
litigation
regarding the validity of elections, held
from time to time, has been perennial. It
has vacillated between the Authorities and
this Court with never a quietus to it. The
authority of an undisputed management has
not been established after the year 2007.
An Authorized Controller is managing the
affairs of the College since the year 2007
till date and all elections that have been
held by the Authorized Controller, with an
elected management returned to office,
have been unsettled by rivals challenging it,
either before this Court or the Education
Authorities. Those elections have been set
aside by the Authorities as well as by this
Court with repeat directions to the
Authorized Controller to determine the
electoral college, in accordance with the
By-laws of the Society and the scheme of
administration
of
the
College.
Each
determination of the electoral college by
the Authorized Controller has led to a fresh
challenge by one faction or the other, with
a re-determination being directed again,
and the elections held set at naught.

5. It would not be of much profit to
refer to the long course of litigation with
the history of it being etched for every
detail of it. It would be apposite to pick-up
the thread of the managerial dispute
midway in the course of its long and
1 All. Sant Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1215
chequered history. It appears that the
Authorized Controller vide his order dated
June 22, 2013 finalized the list of 35
members and held elections on June 29,
2013. The Regional Level Committee
recognized the said elections, wherein
respondent no.5, Smt. Malti Devi, was
declared elected as the Manager of the
Committee of Management. This was
questioned by the writ petitioner-appellant
through Writ-C No.14099 of 2014 on
ground that earlier a list of 36 members
stood approved and there was no dispute.
However, the list carried both life members
and ordinary members. The Authorized
Controller had been directed to find out, if
any, ordinary members had ceased to be
competent electors. The exercise was
completed under orders of this Court dated
January 29, 2013 and a list of 36 members
finalized. So far as the list 67 members
submitted
by
the
rival
faction
was
concerned, this Court said that it had to be
proved through a suit before a Civil Court.

6. This contention on behalf of the
writ petitioner-appellant was questioned on
behalf of Malti Devi saying that the list of
36 members was never finalized, but the
matter was entrusted to the Authorized
Controller to determine the electoral
college by the Division Bench in Special
Appeal, which the Authorized Controller
would do on the basis of evidence produced
before him. This Court opined that the 36
members could not be eliminated and
replaced by another 35 by the Authorized
Controller. On the aforesaid reasoning, the
orders of the Authorized Controller dated
June 22, 2013 finalizing the list of 35
members of the electoral college and the
order dated January 28, 2014, recognizing
the elections of the fifth respondent on the
basis of the said electoral college were
stayed. The Authorized Controller was
ordered to continue managing the affairs of
the Institution.

7. Pending the aforesaid writ petition,
another election was privately held on June
15, 2016, which the District Inspector of
Schools appears to have recognized by an
order dated May 23, 2017. The order dated
May
23,
2017,
recognizing
the
management
elected
in
the
private
elections, was impugned before this Court
in Writ-C No.34865 of 2017. This Court,
by an interim order dated August 8, 2017
passed in Writ-C No. 34865 of 2017,
stayed the order of the District Inspector of
Schools dated May 23, 2017, recognizing
the elections. The matter was carried in
Special Appeal to the Division Bench
against the interim order of this Court dated
August 8, 2017 by respondent no.5. The
Division Bench disposed of Special Appeal
(D) No. 491 of 2017 as well as Writ-C No.
34865 of 2017, out of which the appeal
arose, with a direction to the Authorized
Controller managing the College, to ensure
fresh elections to the Committee of
Management, strictly in accordance with
the
scheme
of
administration,
after
determination of the electoral college by a
reasoned order, within the period of two
months.

8. In compliance with the directions
of the Division Bench in Special Appeal
(D) No. 491 of 2017, the Authorized
Controller of the College determined the
electoral college afresh vide order dated
December 30, 2017 and declared a general
body of 32 members and an observer was
duly appointed for the conduct of elections.
And, on January 22, 2018 elections to the
Committee of Management were held in
the observer's presence. In the said
elections, respondent no.5 was returned
elected to the office of Manager again. Her
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
elections were approved by the District
Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur vide order
January 25, 2018 and signatures attested.
The order dated January 25, 2018 was
again challenged before this Court by the
writ petitioner vide Writ-C No.19219 of
2019, which was decided on July 30, 2019.

9. A reading of the order dated July
30, 2019 shows somehow that the order of
the District Inspector of Schools dated
January 25, 2018 alone was challenged. At
least,
it
does
not
show
that
the
determination of the electoral college by
the Authorized Controller vide order
December 30, 2017 was scrutinized by the
learned Single Judge, before whom Writ-C
No.19219 of 2019 came up for hearing.
The learned Single Judge virtually declined
to interfere with the order dated January 25,
2018, attesting the fifth respondent's
signatures. The writ petitioner did not press
the relief that he sought in Writ-C
No.19219 of 2019 and instead submitted
before the learned Single Judge hearing the
aforesaid writ petition that he may be
permitted to make an application before the
Regional
Level
Committee,
Varanasi
Division, Varanasi, which may be decided
within a stipulated period of time. The
learned Judge directed the Regional Level
Committee, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to
decide the application that the writ
petitioner may move before it within a
stipulated period of time. It is of
importance to reproduce the relevant part
of the learned Judge's order passed in WritC No.19219 of 2019. It reads:

"The petitioner, has challenged
the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the
respondent
No.4-District
Inspector
of
Schools, Jaunpur, upholding the election
claim set up by the respondent No.5. The
petitioner, submits that the election claim
set up by the respondent No.4, is
invalidated. Admittedly, the elections have
been taken place, and the signatures of the
newly elected manager has attested.

The relief sought for cannot be
granted.

At this stage, learned counsel for
the petitioner, recasts his relief. He does not
press the relief sought in the writ petition,
at this stage. He submits, that the petitioner,
shall make an application before the
respondent
No.2-Regional
Level
Committee, Varanasi Division, Varanasi
and the same may be decided in a
stipulated period of time.

In case the petitioner, moves an
application before the respondent No.2Regional
Level
Committee,
Varanasi
Division, Varanasi, the same shall be
decided, preferably, within a period of six
months, from the date of, receipt of, a
certified copy of this order along with a
fresh copy of the representation, after
giving opportunity to concerned parties,
including the respondent No.4.

It is clarified that this Court has
not gone into the veracity of the assertions
made in the writ petition, nor has judged
the claim of the petitioner on merits. It is
for the competent authority, to do so, with
an independent application of mind."

10. Upon the matter going before the
Regional Level Committee, they proceeded
to pass an order dated December 3, 2020,
setting aside the order of the District
Inspector of Schools dated January 25,
2018 and also held that the elections
convened on January 22, 2018 were ones
without duly examining the validity of
membership of the electoral college/
general body. The Authorized Controller
1 All. Sant Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1217
was directed to determine afresh the
electoral college in accordance with the
various directions of this Court, earlier
issued and examining the earlier list of the
general body. The elections were directed
to be held afresh in accordance with the
amended scheme of administration. The
said order was questioned in Writ-C No.
1285 of 2021 before this Court by
respondent no.5, Smt. Malti Devi, who had
been declared elected as the Manager in
terms of the elections held on January 22,
2018 with her signatures attested on
January 25, 2018, all set at naught by the
Regional Level Committee, through the
order dated February 3, 2020.

11. This Court upon hearing parties
was of opinion that the Regional Level
Committee had faulted the elections solely
on the basis of the interim order passed in
Writ-C No. 14099 of 2014. It was further
opined that the Regional Level Committee
had failed to take into consideration the
orders of the Division Bench in Special
Appeal (D) No. 491 of 2017, an appeal that
arose out of a later writ petition, which
required the Authorized Controller to
finalize the electoral college. It was also
opined by the learned Judge deciding WritC No. 1285 of 2021 that the Regional Level
Committee failed to take into consideration
the exercise undertaken by the Authorized
Controller to finalize the electoral college,
which was determined by him by his order
dated December 30, 2017. The learned
Judge has remarked that the order dated
December 30, 2017 is under challenge in
pending Writ-C No. 7779 of 2018, but no
interim orders have been passed there. This
Court held that the pendency of Writ-C No.
7779 of 2018 or the interim orders passed
in earlier Writ-C No. 14099 of 2014, could
not
have
materially
impacted
the
determination of the electoral college by
the Authorized Controller. Accordingly, the
learned Judge allowed Writ-C No. 1285 of
2021 and quashed the order of the Regional
Level Committee dated December 3, 2020.
The Authorized Controller was directed to
determine the electoral college upon
hearing objections by the parties to the
determination of the electoral college as
decided in terms of his order dated
December 30, 2017. It was clarified that the
aforesaid issue shall be decided by the
Authorized Controller, uninfluenced by the
interim order passed in Writ-C No. 14099
of 2014 or the pendency of Writ-C No.
7779 of 2018.

12. It is in compliance with the
aforesaid
orders
that
the
Authorized
Controller has passed the impugned order
dated March 24, 2021, determining an
electoral college of 28 members, on the
basis of which elections have now been
held and the fifth respondent declared
elected as the Manager of College and her
signatures attested. The order dated March
24, 2021, now passed by the Authorized
Controller and the consequential orders are
the subject matter of challenge in the writ
petition giving rise to this appeal.

13. The Authorized Controller while
passing the order impugned held that the
writ petitioner had no locus standi to
question the determination of the electoral
college or the elections held, because vide
order dated December 30, 2017 earlier
passed by the Authorized Controller, he
was held not to be a member of the general
body of the Society or the College, since
his membership had been terminated for
gross misconduct by the Founder Trustees
of the Society, under By-law 10(Gha) of
the By- laws, through a resolution dated
March 3, 2009. It was opined by the
Authorized Controller that this Court vide
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment and order dated February 8, 2021
after quashing the order dated December 3,
2020 passed by the Regional Level
Committee
had
permitted
the
writ
petitioner to file objections to the order
dated December 30, 2017. It was, therefore,
open to the writ petition to show how the
order of the Authorized Controller dated
December 30, 2017 was wrong, but the writ
petitioner could not point out how that
order was bad. The reason, according to the
Authorized Controller, was that the order
dated December 30, 2017 held the
petitioner to be not a member of the general
body, because his membership had been
terminated by the Founder Trustees of the
Society for gross misconduct vide order
dated March 3, 2009.

14.
 The
Authorized
Controller
recorded a finding that there is nothing to
show that the order dated March 3, 2009,
terminating the membership of the writ
petitioner by the Founder Trustees for gross
misconduct, had been challenged before
any competent Court or Authority. It has
become final. In fact, the Authorized
Controller has recorded in the order dated
March 24, 2021 that the Founder Trustees
have terminated the membership of the writ
petitioner, besides another 35 members of
the Society. It was opined, therefore, that
assuming that in the year 2007-08, the writ
petitioner was a member of the Society/
general
body
of
the
College,
his
membership did not survive the termination
dated March 3, 2009, which has since
become final. This is what the Authorized
Controller earlier held by the order dated
December 30, 2017.

15.

The
writ
petitioner
upon
objections preferred against the order dated
December 30, 2017 in terms of the orders
of this Court dated February 8, 2021 passed
in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021, could not
demonstrate how he would regain his lost
membership that the Authorized Controller
had held he did not have after March 3,
2009.

16. The learned Single Judge, before
whom a grievance was made that the
judgment of this Court dated February 8,
2021 passed in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021,
had set aside the order dated December 3,
2020 passed by the Regional Level
Committee and remitted the matter to the
Authorized Controller to consider the
objections which the parties may choose to
prefer, was not complied with, because the
Authorized Controller threw out the writ
petitioner's claim on the ground of his locus
standi. The learned Single Judge held that
locus standi is also a part of consideration
of the writ petitioner's claim and if the writ
petitioner could not establish that, no fault
could be found with the impugned order
passed by the Authorized Controller dated
March 24, 2021 and the consequential
orders under challenge in the writ petition.

17. Before us, Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate submits that the learned
Single Judge has committed a grave error
of law in failing to appreciate that the
learned Judge, while sending the matter to
the Authorized Controller, had required
him to decide the vexed issue of
composition of the general body, but the
Authorized Controller rejected the writ
petitioner's objections solely on the ground
of locus standi. We may note here that the
writ petitioner, while challenging the
earlier attestation of the fifth respondent's
election held by the Authorized Controller
on January 22, 2018 vide Writ-C No.
19219 of 2019, did not challenge the order
dated December 30, 2017 passed by the
Authorized Controller, on the basis of
1 All. Sant Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1219
which the elections dated January 22, 2018
were held, wherein the fifth respondent was
elected. The order of this Court dated July
30, 2019 passed in Writ-C No. 19219 of
2019 would show that the order of
attestation of signatures of the fifth
respondent alone dated January 25, 2018
(based on the elections dated January 22,
2018) were alone challenged. The order
dated December 30, 2017, which was the
foundation of the elections dated January
22, 2018 or the said elections itself were
never challenged by the writ petitioner. The
writ petition was not pressed with liberty to
move the Regional Level Committee for
relief. Thus, the order dated December 30,
2017 has attained finality between parties.
It is in consequence of the decision taken
by the Regional Level Committee on the
writ petitioner's application that he made
after withdrawal of Writ-C No. 19291 of
2019 to the Regional Level Committee, that
the writ petitioner commenced fresh and
almost collateral proceedings in the garb of
assailing the order dated February 3, 2020
passed by the Regional Level Committee.

18. We say collateral proceedings,
because in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021, the
writ petitioner challenged the order of
February 3, 2020 passed by the Regional
Level Committee and attempted to question
the order of the Authorized Controller
dated December 30, 2017 that had already
attained finality. It is for the said reason
that the learned Judge while allowing the
writ petition dated February 8, 2021,
permitted objections to be filed against the
order dated December 30, 2017, but
expressed no opinion on its validity. In fact,
not much could be said against the said
order, either before this Court or before the
Authorized Controller, except something
very fundamental or on wider ground. The
Authorized Controller while hearing the
writ
petitioner's
objections,
in
our
considered opinion, rightly concluded that
he had nothing to say on merits against
what was held by the Authorized Controller
earlier, vide order of December 30, 2017.
The order of December 30, 2017 had held
that the writ petition had no locus to
question the determination of the electoral
college of the Society or the College,
because vide order dated March 3, 2009,
the Founder Trustees had removed 32
members, including the writ petitioner,
from membership of the Society in exercise
of powers under Clause 10(Gha) of the Bylaws of the Society. The order of December
30, 2017 further records the fact that the
order dated March 3, 2009 had never been
challenged before any forum, Court or
Authority and it was, thus, final.

19. Before the Authorized Controller,
when the matter came on a remit from the
learned Single Judge in terms of the
judgment and order dated February 8, 2021
passed in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021, the
writ petitioner could not show anything that
may dispel the finding earlier recorded by
the Authorized Controller vide order dated
December 30, 2017 to the effect that the
writ petitioner's membership of the Society
stood terminated in terms of the order dated
March 3, 2009, passed by the Founder
Trustees, under the By-laws of the Society.
Since the writ petitioner has apparently lost
his status as a member of the general body
of the Society, in terms of a resolution of
removal passed by the Founder Trustees on
March 3, 2009, which has not been
challenged anywhere, his right to question
the determination of the electoral college is
decidedly without any right; or as the
learned Single Judge says, without locus
standi. All this is about consideration of the
writ petitioner's case and it is fallacious to
say that there was anything else to be
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considered by the Authorities at the
instance of the writ petitioner, relating to
the validity of the electoral college, once
the writ petitioner's membership of the
Society and a fortiori the general body of
the institution is non-existent.

20. We, therefore, see no reason to
interfere with the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge.

21. The Special Appeal fails and is
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1220
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ-A No. 3074 of 2021

Anoop Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rishi Raj, Sri Vinay Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Suspension/Punishment
- U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules,
1956 - Rule 3 - Disciplinary proceedings
can be initiated against an employee in
respect of the action, even if it pertains to
exercise
of
judicial
or
quasi-judicial
powers. If a servant conducts himself in a way
inconsistent with the faithful discharge of his
duty in the service, it is misconduct which
justifies immediate dismissal. (Para 13, 14)

It is not necessary that a member of the
service should have committed the alleged act
or omission in the course of discharge of his
duty as a servant of the Government in order
that it may form the subject matter of
disciplinary proceedings. In other words, if
the act or omission is such as to reflect the
reputation of the officer for his integrity or
good faith or devotion to duty, there is no
reason why disciplinary proceedings should
not be taken against him for that act or
omission. (Para 12)

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that
the assessment so made by the petitioner for
the assessment year 2014-15 vide order
dated
20.09.2018
upon
which
he
was
subjected to inquiry was challenged by the
trader, namely, Shashi Sales, in the Court of
Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal),
Lucknow and the Appellate Authority, vide
order dated 05.10.2018, allowed the appeal
and quashed the order of assessment dated
20.09.2018 and remitted the matter to the
assessing officer for re-assessment of tax.
Thus, it appears that no revenue loss has
incurred to the government. (Para 17)

B. Due and proper opportunity of hearing -
The impugned order passed by the Tribunal
indicates that the issue was raised before it but
it came to a contrary finding by holding that
since the enquiry was based on the basis of
quasi-judicial order passed by the petitioner,
hence there was no requirement to hold a fullfledged enquiry. Where the charge-sheet
has been served on the petitioner and
major punishment is proposed, which has
been awarded to the petitioner, in such
circumstances, a proper enquiry ought to
have been held and it cannot be skirted by
saying that there was no need for holding
the same as it was based on documents.
Even if, at all, the said enquiry was based on
documents, the least that could have been
done, was to prove the said documents
inasmuch as it has been noticed that it was
not the legality of the order which was in
issue rather it was the manner in which
the order was passed, upon which the
charge-sheet was issued and was the
subject matter of the enquiry against the
petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been
completely lost sight off by the enquiry officer
as well as disciplinary authority and has also