# Satyendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 790
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-06-14
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No.1832(S/S) of 2008
- **Bench:** Shabihul Hasnain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyendra-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42600
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226-
Cancellation
of
selection-class
4th
employee-on
ground
malafide
arbitrariness-challenged on ground for
misdeed of employee-petitioners not to
suffer-while in pursuance of selection list
working for considerable period and
drawing
salary-Interview
of
1817
candidates in Single day not humanly
possible-apart from it Dr. Pandey drawn
two days salary of all candidates in cashagainst the rule of government by which
payment of salary by cash prohibiteditself speaks about malafide-cancellation
of entire selection-held proper.

Held: Para-20
In view of above stated facts and
arguments of both the parties and after
a keen observation of records Court is of
the view that the selection in question is
liable to be quashed on the grounds of
various illegalities.

Case
Law
discussed:
2 All] Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
791
2007(25) LCD 460; 1991 (4) SCC 555; 2008
(4) SCC 619; 2011(1) ALJ 61; (1997) 9 SCC
527;

## Text

790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
doubt that the result of the trial, which
follows it cannot be set aside unless the
illegality in the investigation can be
shown
to
have
brought
about
a
miscarriage of justice and that an
illegality committed in the course of
investigation
does
not
affect
the
competence and the jurisdiction of the
court for trial. This being the legal
position, even assuming for the sake of
argument that C.B.I. committed an error
or irregularity in submitting the chargesheet without the approval of C.V.C., the
cognizance taken by the learned Special
Judge on the basis of such a charge-sheet
could not be set aside nor could further
proceedings in pursuance thereof be
quashed. The High Court has clearly erred
in setting aside the order of the learned
special Judge taking cognizance of the
offence
and
in
quashing
further
proceedings of the case."

10. In the present case, it is also
relevant to mention that the accused
persons are facing trial on the basis of
their summoning under Section 319
Cr.P.C. and not on the basis of chargesheet submitted by the investigating
officer. No gross injustice or violation has
been proved while the first application has
already been rejected on merits, the
subsequent application on the same
grounds was also not maintainable.

11. For the facts and circumstances
mentioned above, I do not find any error
of law or perversity in the impugned
order.

12. The revision is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.06.2013.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.

Writ Petition No.1832(S/S) of 2008
alongwith
W.P. No.8100 (S/S) of 2009, W.P.
No.4688 (S/S) of 2008 ,
W.P. No.4788 (S/S) of 2008 , W.P.
No.6451 (S/S) of 2008,
 W.P. No.8048 (S/S) of 2010 , W.P.
No.7346 (S/S) of 2008 ,
W.P. No.7990 (S/S) 2007 , W.P. No.3449
(S/S) of 2007
W.P. No.1980 (S/S) of 2008 and W.P.
No.1909 (S/S) of 2008

Satyendra Kumar Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. L.P. Misra , Sri P.K. Mishra and Sri
Sharad Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226-
Cancellation
of
selection-class
4th
employee-on
ground
malafide
arbitrariness-challenged on ground for
misdeed of employee-petitioners not to
suffer-while in pursuance of selection list
working for considerable period and
drawing
salary-Interview
of
1817
candidates in Single day not humanly
possible-apart from it Dr. Pandey drawn
two days salary of all candidates in cashagainst the rule of government by which
payment of salary by cash prohibiteditself speaks about malafide-cancellation
of entire selection-held proper.

Held: Para-20
In view of above stated facts and
arguments of both the parties and after
a keen observation of records Court is of
the view that the selection in question is
liable to be quashed on the grounds of
various illegalities.

Case
Law
discussed:
2 All] Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
791
2007(25) LCD 460; 1991 (4) SCC 555; 2008
(4) SCC 619; 2011(1) ALJ 61; (1997) 9 SCC
527;

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.)

1. Heard Dr. L. P. Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioners and learned
Standing counsel for the opposite parties.
Valuable assistance has been provided by
Ms. Twishi Srivastava, Law Trainee of
this Court.

2. This is a bunch of writ petitions,
the leading being the writ petition
No.1832 (S/S) of 2008. These writ
petitions have been filed against the order
dated 10/6/2007 and inquiry report dated
8/6/2007 by which appointment of
petitioners on class IV post has been
declared void by opposite party no 2. To
test the legality of impugned order it
becomes necessary to narrate the facts of
the case which are as follows:

3. The Director(Administration)
Medical
and
Health
Services,U.P.,
opposite party no 2vide letter dated
25/9/2006 communicated the permission
granted
by
State
Government
for
appointment on class IV post in Hospitals,
District Hospitals and Regional Offices
etc of Faizabad and Devipattan Divisions,
this letter is annexed as Annexure no CA
1 to the counter affidavit. Immediately
after
issuance
of
this
letter,
Director(Administration) issued another
letter dated 27/9/2006 directing officers
concerned
that
while
making
appointments pursuant to the letter dated
25/9/2006, the Government Order, Rules
as well as the Directions issued from time
to time shall be strictly adhered to and the
procedure of selection be adopted with
specific care. It was further directed that
the reservation criteria as prescribed
under the rules shall also be strictly
followed. In the letter dated 25/9/2006 a
time table was prescribed for undertaking
the exercise for making recruitment on
class IV post, pursuant to this letter, the
Additional Director, Medical Health and
Family
Welfare,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad, opposite party no 4, circulated
the same to all the Chief Medical Officers
/ Chief Medical Superintendents, District
Hospitals and Medical Superintendents of
District Women Hospital of Faizabad
Division through an endorsement dated
30/10/2006 made in the said letter. In this
endorsement it was specifically directed
by the Additional Director that the entire
exercise shall be done after lifting of the
Election Code of Conduct.

4. It is interesting to note here that
the then Chief Medical Officer of
Ambedkar Nagar namely Dr. V. P.
Pandey before receiving formal direction
of recruitment on class IV post , on 9/10
/2006 i.e. prior to 30/10/2006 date on
which
letter
was
circulated
for
recruitment on class IV post, issued an
advertisement for filling up the vacancies
of class IV post. However after receiving
formal
directions
of
letter
dated
25/9/2006, Dr. V.P.Pandey, opposite
party no 5 cancelled the advertisement
dated
9/10.2006.
Subsequent
advertisement was published in the
newspaper on 9/11/2006,fixing thereby
24/11/2006 to be the date of interview.

5. In the meantime, a complaint was
made by one Sri Ram Murti Verma before
the then Minister, Medical,Health and
Family Welfare against Dr. V.P.Pandey,
on the ground that Dr. V.P.Pandey has
accepted bribe from several candidates.
On receiving the complaint, the then
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Minister of the Ministry concerned
directed
the
Principal
Secretary,
Medical,Health and Family Welfare, U.P.
to
inquire
into
the
matter.
State
Government opposite party no1 while
taking cognizance of the said complaint,
containing
serious
allegations
of
accepting bribe against the Chief Medical
Superintendent of Ambedkar Nagar Dr.
V.P.Pandey,
vide
an
order
dated
22/11/2006 stayed the proceedings of
selection till further order of the State
Government.
Thereafter,
Director
General, Medical and Health Services
U.P., opposite party no2, vide an order
dated 23/11/2006 directed the Additional
Director, Medical Health and Family
Welfare, Faizabad Division, Faizabad,
opposite party no 4, to conduct the inquiry
into the matter. opposite party no 4 vide
its report dated 25/11/2006 recorded a
finding that the selection was being made
by Dr. V. P.Pandey as per rules and copy
of report was also sent to State
Government.

6. Although this report stated that
there was no irregularity in selection
procedure, yet the selection process
stayed by the State Government vide
order dated 22/11/2006 remained stayed.
This stay order dated 22/11/2006 was
with respect to the district Ambedkar
Nagar
only,
however
the
State
Government by a general order dated
29/11/2006 stayed the selection process of
class IV post in the entire State of U.P.

7.

Against
the
order
dated
22/11/2006 one Smt Rajkumari alongwith several other persons preferred a writ
petition bearing no 9880(S/S) of 2006 in
which this court vide its judgment dated
23/3/2007 directed that in case the inquiry
regarding the selection stood concluded
and a report had been submitted to the
State Government and complaints have
been found to be baseless, the respondent
may proceed with the selection in
accordance with law.

8. In the garb of report submitted by
Additional Director opposite party no4 on
25/11/2006 and order of this court dated
23/3/2007, Dr. V.P.Pandey sought legal
opinion from the District Government
Council
(Civil),
Ambedkar
Nagar,
regarding
stay
of
selection
dated
22/11/2006, who in response opined vide
letter dated 29/5/2007 that now the
selection can be proceeded with.

9. In the mean time, Additional
Director opposite party no4 vide letter
dated 28/5/2007 advised Dr. V.P.Pandey
that the purpose of filling of the backlog
vacancies pertaining to the reserved
categories of SC,ST and OBC and while
making such selection the orders and
directions issued by the State Government
from time to time in the matter of said
appointment be strictly adhered to. Inspite
of
these
specific
directions
Dr.
V.P.Pandey
conducted
selection
proceedings
in
violation
of
these
directions
and
interviewed
1817
candidates in a single day i.e. on
29/5/2007. After interviewing such a huge
number of candidates in a single day,
astonishingly, on the very next day i.e. on
30/5/2007, appointment letters of 62
selected candidates were also issued.
These candidates were given joining on
the same very day i.e. on 30/5/2007. Dr.
V. P. Pandey went out of way to ensure
payment of salary to the petitioners. He
withdrew the salary of selected candidates
for 2 days i.e. 30/5/2007 and 31/5/2007
through a bearer cheque from the State
Bank Of India, branch Ambedkar Nagar
2 All] Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
793
on 8/6/2007 in violation of rules of State
Government. Rules expressly prohibit the
payment of salary in cash to employee.
On the same date opposite party no4 by
taking cognizance vide letter dated
8/6/2007,addressed to Chief Treasury
Officer, Ambedkar Nagar, requested to
stop the payment of the salary of 62
selected
candidates,
as
annexed
in
Annexure no CA6.

10. In the light of aforesaid
illegalities committed by Dr. V.P.Pandey
and several other employees, an FIR was
lodged against him as well a against 62
selected candidates on 9/6/2007 i.e. the
next day. It was registered as case crime
no
245/2007undr
section
419/420/466/468/471 of Indian Penal
Code
1860,
police
station
kotwali
Akbarpur, district Ambedkar Nagar. On
10/6/2007 the then Additional Director of
Division
concerned
directed
Dr.
V.P.Pandey that the Director General,
Medical
and
Health
Services
U.P.,opposite part no 2 has declared 62
appointments made by Dr. B.P. Pandey to
be void and the said employee may be
restrained from working and from signing
the register. Letters dated 8.6.2007 and
10.6.2007 are annexed as Annexure nos.
C.A. 11 & 12. On 8.6.2007 Additional
Director Faizabad Division was directed
by Principal Secretary, Department of
Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P.
to inquire in to the matter and on the same
day Additional Director submitted its
report as annexed in C.A. 13 to the writ
petition, containing categorical findings
regarding the corruption in selection to
State Government. By taking cognizance
of the said report State Government and
Director (Administration), Directorate of
Medical and Health Services, U.P. vide
order dted 9.6.2007 placed all the persons
involved in said illegal selection under
suspension.
On
11.6.2007
District
Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar constituted
a
committee
comprising
of
Chief
Development Officer, Ambedkar Nagar,
Additional District Magistrate ( F&R)
Ambedkar Nagar and Soil Conservator,
Ambedkar Nagar to conduct an inquiry in
the matter regarding the said appointment.
This committee submitted its report on
16.6.2007 as contained in C.A. 15
wherein it reveals a large scale illegalities
and irregularity committed in selection
proceedings.

11. Petitioners have taken a
contention that action of opposite parties
in not permitting the petitioners to
discharge their duties is patently arbitrary
and malafide, particularly when no
reasons have been assigned by the
opposite
parties
for
restraining
the
petitioners from discharging their duties
inspite of the fact that the petitioners have
not only submitted their joining in terms
of their appointment order but have also
worked on the said post and received
salary against it. Petitioners have further
argued that since petitioners have joined
duties and worked on their posts, a right
has accrued in favour of petitioners, hence
impugned action of the opposite parties in
declaring
the
appointment
of
the
petitioners is void as no opportunity of
hearing was given to the petitioners and it
amounts to violation of principles of
natural justice.

12. In counter to these arguments,
opposite parties have argued that since the
whole selection in question was void,
therefore, there was no requirement to
give opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners prior to declaring their services
to be void. Opposite parties have placed
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
their reliance on para no. 12 of the
judgment reported in (2002) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 146 ( Union of India and
others vs. O. Chakradhar). Paragaraph no.
12 of the aforesaid judgment is being
quoted herein below:

"12. As per the report of CBI the
whole selection smacks of mala fides and
arbitrariness. All norms are said to have
been violated with impunity at each stage
viz. right from the stage of entertaining
applications, with answer-sheet while in
the custody of Chairman, in holding
typing test, in interview and in the end
while preparing the final result. In such
circumstances it may not be possible to
pick out or choose a few persons in
respect of whom alone the selection could
be cancelled and their services in
pursuance thereof could be terminated.
The illegality and irregularity are so
intermixed with the whole process of the
selection that it becomes impossible to
sort out the right from the wrong or vice
versa. The result of such a selection
cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a
case where a question of misconduct on
the part of a candidate is to be gone into
but a case where those who conducted the
selection
have
rendered
it
wholly
unacceptable. Guilt of those who have
been selected is not the question under
consideration but the question is could
such selection be acted upon in the matter
of public employment? We are therefore,
of the view that it is not one of those cases
where it may have been possible to issue
any individual notice of misconduct to
each selectee and seek his explanation in
regard to the large scale, widespread and
all
-pervasive
illegalities
and
irregularities committed by those who
conducted the selection which may of
course possibly be for the benefit of those
who have been selected but there may be
a few who may have deserved selection
otherwise, but it is difficult to separate the
cases of some of the candidates from the
rest even if there may be some. The
decision in the case of Krishan Yadav
applies to the facts of the present case.
The Railway Board's decision to cancel
the selection cannot be faulted with. The
appeal therefore deserves to be allowed."

13. Opposite parties have further
argued that a detailed inquiry was
conducted to check the illegality of
selection in question and inquiry report
has established the fact of gross illegality
committed in selection procedure. Since a
speaking order has been passed by the
opposite parties, the action of opposite
parties is neither arbitrary nor malafide.

14. Opposite parties have also argued
that interview of 1871 candidates in a single
day is highly improbable and this fact itself
prima
facie
establishes
that
selection
procedure was farce and mockery. In support
of his contentions, opposite parties have
placed reliance upon para 19 of Lalit Kumar
and others Vs. King George's Medical
University, Lucknow and others, 2007 (25)
LCD 460 which reads as under:-

"19. In Raj Kumar V. Shakti Raj,
reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is not
practically possible to interview so many
candidates and if interview held it will be
a fare and mockery. Thus the interview
was mere a farce and mockery and
humanly impossible to interview more
than six hundred candidates in two days.
In the instant case, as per the Rule 5(4)
(a) it specifically provides that a number
of candidates to be called against the
number of vacancies but in the instant
case, more than six hundred candidates
2 All] Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
795
appeared and had been interviewed on
the aforesaid two days. Admittedly, no
marks have been awarded for academic
qualification as required under Rule 5(1)
(I) to (iii) of Rules 2003 but cent per cent
marks have been reserved for interview."

15. In counter to this petitioners
have argued that interview was for class
IV posts which need not much time to be
spent for interview. Class IV post does
not require immense knowledge hence
within a short span of time, candidates for
class IV posts can easily be interviewed.
In support of this contention petitioners
have relied upon para 6 of Sardara Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1991 (4)
SCC 555 and 619 which reads as under:-

"6. It is next contended that there
was no proper opportunity given to the
appellants in the interview. Only 15 hours
were spent to interview 821 candidates
and the selection, therefore, is a farce.
This contention also was not raised before
the High Court, but raised In these
appeals for the first time. In the counter
filed in this Court, it was refuted. It was
stated that they had spent 35 hours in
total at the rate of 7 hours per day. That
means they spent 5 days in selecting the
candidates. The selection is for the
Patwaris in the Class III service. The
ratio in Ashok Kumar Yadav V. State of
Haryana has no application to the facts in
this case. Therein the selection was to the
Class I service of the State service and
sufficient time was required to interview
each
candidate.
In
this
case,
on
calculation, we found that on an average
three minutes were spent for each
candidate for selection. Rule 7 of the
Rules provides the qualifications, namely,
pass in the Matriculation or Higher
Secondary Examination; knowledge in
Hindi and Punjabi up to the Middle
Standard and good knowledge of rural
economy and culture. The educational
qualifications are apparent from record
and need no interview in this regard. It
could be seen that candidates normally
hailing from rural backgrounds had
presumptively good knowledge of rural
economy and culture. Therefore, there is
no need for special emphasis to ascertain
their knowledge of the rural economy or
culture. Under those circumstances much
time need not be spent on each candidate
for selection except asking some questions
on general knowledge and aptitude for
work as Patwari etc."

16. The petitioners have further
relied upon para 42 of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sadanand Halo and others Vs. Momtaz
Ali Sheikh and another, 2008 (4) SCC
619 which is quoted as under:-

"42. To sum up, these were the
interviews for the post of constables and
the minimum educational standard was
prescribed as 7th Class pass. There were
no
requirements
of
testing
the
administrative or management capacity of
the candidates and/or any other quality
which is required for the higher posts. All
that was necessary was firstly to see their
physical fitness in terms of physical
endurance, their smartness in appearance
and further to test their intelligence level
as required for the post of constable
including their general knowledge. We
cannot
ignore
that
thousands
of
candidates had turned up and what we
find from the guidelines was, firstly these
candidates
had
to
fulfill
physical
standards in terms of height, etc. as also
the minimum educational qualification.
Obviously all the candidates could not
have had those physical standards."
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

17. The petitioners have taken
another contention that even if it is
presumed that whole selection was illegal
petitioners are not at fault as petitioners
are duly qualified for the post and they
have been appointed after they have
passed the interview. Petitioners have also
argued that since liability of such
illegality of selection in question has been
fixed upon the Dr. V. P. Pandey and other
employees by inquiry report, they should
only suffer for their fault. Petitioners have
participated in
bonafide
manner
in
selection procedure and they should not
be allowed to suffer for the fault of
another person.

18. Petitioners have further argued
that since there has been no strict action
against Dr. V. P. Pandey, who is solely
responsible
for
illegal
selection
in
question, his burden of liability can not be
shifted at the petitioners. If Dr. V. P.
Pandey has not been proceeded against, it
clearly gives impression that opposite
parties are admitting the legality of
selection procedure.

19. In counter to these arguments
opposite parties have stated that the
moment cognizance about such illegal
selection was taken, Dr. V. P. Pandey and
other employees were suspended at that
very moment. Opposite party has further
stated that exoneration of delinquent does
not absolve the illegality committed in
selection procedure. To support this
contention the opposite parties have
placed reliance upon para 32 of Rakesh
Kumar Kanaujia Vs. State of U.P., 2011
(1) ALJ 61 which reads as under:-

"32. The third issue relates to
exoneration of Dr. P. N. Shukla in the
disciplinary inquiry. The disciplinary
inquiry was initiated against Dr. P. N.
Shukla, the then Chief Medical Officer
alleging irregularity and illegality in the
selection. The State Government has
exonerated the Chief Medical Officer
from the charges. The exoneration of Dr.
P. N. Shukla, Chief Medical Officer from
the
charges
and
holding
that
no
misconduct was committed by the Chief
Medical Officer (Dr. P. N. Shukla) cannot
be treated to be affirmation of the process
of selection and appointment made by Dr.
P. N. Shukla. Dr. P. N. Shukla may not be
found guilty of misconduct but mere
exoneration from misconduct cannot be
treated to be affirmation of the selection
process undertaken by him."

20. In view of above stated facts and
arguments of both the parties and after a
keen observation of records Court is of
the view that the selection in question is
liable to be quashed on the grounds of
various illegalities.

21. Firstly, inquiry report as
contained in annexure No.CA-15 has
itself established the illegality of selection
procedure. Court has gone through
inquiry report in an exhaustive manner
and the Court is fully convinced that
inquiry report has proved the illegality of
selection in question.

22. Secondly, interview of 1817
candidates in a single day is beyond
human imagination. This view of the
Court gets support from ratio of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar V.
Shakti Raj, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527
in which, Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that it is not practically possible to
interview so many candidates and if
interview held it will be a farce and
2 All] Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
797
mockery. Thus the interview was mere a
farce
and
mockery
and
humanly
impossible to interview more than six
hundred candidates in two days. In the
instant case, as per the Rule 5(4) (a) it
specifically provides that a number of
candidates to be called against the number
of vacancies but in the instant case, more
than six hundred candidates appeared and
had been interviewed on the aforesaid two
days. Admittedly, no marks have been
awarded for academic qualification as
required under Rule 5(1) (I) to (iii) of
Rules 2003 but cent per cent marks have
been reserved for interview.

23. Petitioners have supported their
contention by relying on Sardara Singh
and others (supra) and Sadananda Halo
and others (supra) but ratio of both the
cases finds no application in the instant
case. In the case of Sardara Singh (supra)
only 821 candidates were interviewed that
too for five days spending seven hours per
day, whereas in the instant case 1871
candidates, more than twice of 821
candidates were interviewed that too in a
single day. Thus, this factual situation
itself speaks non-application of ratio of
Sardara Singh (supra) in present case.

24. Petitioners have further relied
upon Sadanand Halo's case specifically
upon para 42(supra).

25. The plain reading of this para
suffices to establish that ratio is not
applicable in the present case because in
Sadanand Halo's case decisive factor for
selection was physical endurance for
which an exhaustive test was already
conducted.
There
were
not
many
candidates to be interviewed. Interview
was merely for the purpose to check
whether
interviewee
falls
within
prescribed physical fitness or not ? If he
falls then only he was to be interviewed.
Para 44 says that this case itself
demonstrated the same.

26. Petitioners have also drawn the
attention of this Court towards para 41 of
this case which is quoted as under:-

"41. The question of large number of
candidates appearing for the selection
process again came up before this Court
in Joginder Singh v. Roshan Lal. A
complaint was made in this case that 323
candidates appeared for the test in two
days and on that basis a select list was
prepared by the Departmental Promotion
Committee. The High Court called this
selection process as a farce on the ground
that fair chance was never given to the
candidates to show their worth. The Court
observed in para 5 as under:-
(SCC pp. 766-67)

"5. On the facts on record we see no
justification for the High Court to have
come to this conclusion. The High Court
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution is not supposed to
act as an appellate authority over the
decision of the Departmental Selection
Committee. If the Committee has been
properly constituted, as in this case, and
the post is advertised and a selection
process known to law which is fair to all,
is followed, then the High Court could
have no jurisdiction to go into a question
whether
the
Departmental
Selection
Committee conducted the test properly or
not when there is no allegation of mala
fides or bias against any member of the
Committee. Merely because there were a
large number of candidates who appeared
on two days, cannot ipso facto lead to the
conclusion that the process of selection
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
was a farce and fair chance was not
given. Normally experienced persons are
appointed as members of the Selection
Committee and how much time should be
spent with a candidate would vary from
person to person. Merely because only
two days were spent in conducting the
interviews for the selection of Class IV
posts cannot lead to the conclusion that
the process of selection was not proper."

27. In this para Hon'ble Apex Court
itself has stated that "if the committee has
been properly constituted, as in this case,
and the post is advertised and a selection
process known to law which is fair to all,
is followed, then the High Court could
have no jurisdiction to go into a question
whether
the
Departmental
Selection
Committee conducted the test properly or
not when there is no allegation of mala
fides or bias against any member of the
Committee." Unlike this case, in the
present case no advertisement was there,
selection committee was not properly
constituted, no fair selection process was
adopted and also there was an element of
bias and mala fide. These all factors were
proved by inquiry report in detail.

28. Apex Court has also stated that
"normally
experienced
persons
are
appointed as members of the Selection
Committee and how much time should be
spent with a candidate would vary from
person to person. Merely because only
two days were spent in conducting the
interviews for the selection of Class IV
posts cannot lead to the conclusion that
the process of selection was not proper."

29. It becomes here important to
show the figures of candidates in cited
case and in the instant case. In the cited
case, in the District of Dhubri, 3722
candidates were interviewed for nine days
i.e. approx. 414 candidates per day. In the
District of Barpeta 5540 candidates were
interviewed i.e. approx. 616 candidates
per day. In District Sonitpur approx 500
candidates were interviewed per day. In
the present case 1817 candidates were
interviewed in a single day which is
almost thrice of figures stated above.

30. Even if it is presumed that the
interview was conducted since morning to
night, as stated by the petitioners, maximum
16 hours in a day can be spent. Even if 1817
candidates are interviewed, although this
figure is too improbable, then too maximum
approx. 31 seconds are spent on a single
candidate. And astonishingly this time also
includes period of preparing appointment
letter on the basis of result of this interview. In
nutshell, this single day include, interview of
1817 candidates, then result of this interview,
then preparation of appointment letter.

31. This whole transaction is beyond
human
imagination
and
it
is
so
preposterous
that
it
becomes
itself
evidence against it for the glaring
illegalities committed therein.

32. Ordinarily, Courts can not
question the competency of selection
committee or decide what time should be
spent on a single candidate but in the
event selection suffers from bias, mala
fide,
absence
of
duly
constituted
committee or the illegality committed in
selection is apparent on the face of it,
Courts are bound by law to check the
legality.

33. Hence, in view of above facts,
ratio of the case of Sadanand Halo's
(Supra) is not applicable in the present
case.
2 All] Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
799

34.

Thirdly,
whole
selection
procedure suffers from mala fide. This
mala fide can be established by conduct
of Dr. V. P. Pandey. First of all, Dr. V. P.
Pandey issued an advertisement dated
9.10.2006 for recruitment of class IV post
which is much prior to the date of
receiving of official letter for such
selection
in
question
i.e.
dated
30.10.2006. Although this advertisement
was withdrawn and a fresh advertisement
was issued on 9.11.2006 but this factor
can not deny the absence of mala fide.

35. After issue of advertisement
showing
his
extraordinary
human
approach, which a person of ordinary
prudence would never be able to do, Dr.
V. P. Pandey interviewed 1871 candidates
in a single day and issued appointment
letter on the very next day.

36. Further showing his utter
concern to selected employees, Dr. V. P.
Pandey withdrew the salary of these
employees for two days through a bearer
cheque. Although there are specific rules
of State Government that salary will not
be paid to employees in cash. But Dr. V.
P. Pandey preferred to violate the Rules of
the State Government then to make suffer
selected candidates for non-payment of
salary for two days and he paid the salary
to employees in cash.

37. This whole transaction is selfspeaking about the mala fide contained in
it.

38. The petitioners have taken
contention that in the event selection is
presumed to be illegal, Dr. V. P. Pandey
should only suffer from it and if he is not
being given any punishment even after
fixing his sole liability it means selection
procedure made by him is valid. This
contention was rebutted in the case of
Rajesh Kumar Kanaujia (supra). In view
of this precedent the Court is of the view
that fixing liability and quantum of
punishment all two different facets. Facts
which are taken into consideration for
fixing
liability,
not
necessarily
are
considered while imposing punishment
and
vice
versa.
Thus,
'minimum
punishment or no punishment'. This factor
can not lead to conclusion that there was
no liability at all. No amount of
punishment does not absolve the liability.
Hence, even if Dr. V. P. Pandey is
exonerated it will not change the nature of
selection in question from illegal to legal.
Although it has been informed to the
Court by opposite parties that Dr. V. P.
Pandey has been placed under suspension
and proceedings against him are going on.

39. An important legal plea has been
raised by the petitioners that the opposite
parties have declared the selection void on
8.6.2007 but inquiry to test the alleged
illegality in selection has been initiated
subsequently i.e. on 10.6.2008. The
petitioners
have
argued
that
when
opposite parties declared the selection
void, there was no inquiry and a
subsequent inquiry can not validate the
act of opposite parties.

40. Court is of the view that in this
case inquiry is not validating act of
opposite party but it is of corroborative
value here. Due to such glaring illegalities
the opposite parties have rightly acted in
declaring the selection void. The decision
taken by the opposite parties was not
based on inquiry report but on series of
circumstances which are self-speaking
about
its
illegalities.
Inquiry
was
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
conducted not to check illegalities but to
fix the liabilities as who was responsible
for such a large scale illegalities in
selection. Since evidentiary value of
inquiry report was corroborative and not
substantive, plea of petitioners is not
maintainable.

41. In view of what has been
discussed hereinabove, the writ petitions
are dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2063 of 2006

Nand Kishore Seth ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner and Ors.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Arun Kumar Verma
Sri B.B. Jauhari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling Act 1960Section
10(2)-
Res-judicate
once
proceeding
in
pursuance
of
notice
became final-and 0.28 acre land declared
surplus by order dated 26.07.1976subsequent notice 14.10.1997-indicating
earlier
cut
of
date
08.06.1973-not
maintainable-unless
as
a
result
of
succession, transfer or by prescription in
adverse
possession
there-even
than
notice u/s 29/30 required and not under
section
10(2)-both
authorities
committed great illegality-quashed.

Held: Para-9 & 13
9. Case of the petitioner is that he had
not acquired any land after 18.12.1976
nor he is in possession of excess land.
Moreover notice dated 14.10.1997 itself
indicates
that
cut
off
date
was
mentioned
therein
is 8.6.1973.
The
Prescribed Authority as well as appellate
authority have proceeded to decide the
case afresh in the proceedings pursuant
to the notice under section 10(2) of the
Act. The issue of res judicata raised by
the petitioner was not adverted to and
both
the
authorities
below
had
proceeded on the ground that petitioner
has failed to show that land in dispute is
the same land with respect of which
proceedings were concluded earlier. This
approach of the prescribed authority as
well as appellate authority shows total
non-application
of
mind
and
non
consideration of provision of the Act.

13. For the reasons given above, the orders
passed by the ceiling authorities cannot be
sustained
on
any
count.
The
entire
proceedings reinitiated on the basis of the
second notice under section 10(2) were,
therefore, vitiated. The impugned orders
being illegal are hereby quashed. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

Case Law discussed:
2007(4) AWC 3789; 2005(3) AWC 2565; 2003
(3) AWC 1876; 1979 All.L.J. 43

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J.)

1. This writ petition has been
directed against the order dated 30.7.2005
passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly and order dated
28.2.1998 passed by the Prescribed
Authority (Ceiling) Shahjahanpur.

2. The facts of the case as narrated
in the writ petition are that notice under
section 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling
on
Land
Holdings
Act,
1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
was served upon the petitioner along with
one Shri Laxman Swaroop Seth. By order
dated 26.7.1976 passed by the Prescribed