# Shailendra Kumar Misra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1950
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-10
- **Bench:** Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shailendra-kumar-misra-v-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-43892
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

1950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Service Single/ Writ Petition No.- 2642 Of 1999
&
Service Single/ Writ Petition No.- 5116 Of 2007

Shailendra Kumar Misra ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Y.K. Misra

Counsel for Respondents:
Dr. R.S. Pande

Held

The writ petitions challenged (i) the order refusing financial approval to the petitioner's appointment as
Daftari, and (ii) the order rejecting his representation for payment of salary after the institution was brought
under the grant-in-aid scheme.
The Court found that serious disputed questions of fact were involved, including:
Whether the petitioner was actually appointed on 16.03.1991.
Whether any sanctioned post of Daftari existed at the time of the alleged appointment.
Whether the appointment letter relied upon by the petitioner was genuine.
Whether the petitioner ever worked in the institution.
The Committee of Management and State authorities categorically denied that the petitioner was ever
appointed or worked in the institution, and the then Principal also denied issuing the alleged appointment
letter.
The Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to decide disputed
questions of fact, particularly when authenticity of documents and factual issues require evidence.
It was admitted that the post of Daftari is a promotional post meant to be filled by promotion from ClassIV employees and not by direct recruitment.
The Court noted that the post of Daftari was created only on 21.04.1995, whereas the petitioner
claimed appointment in 1991, therefore such appointment could not be legally valid.
Under Regulations 101 and 102 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
appointment to non-teaching posts in recognized aided institutions requires prior approval of the District
Inspector of Schools, which was not demonstrated by the petitioner.
The petitioner also failed to establish that the prescribed procedure for appointment was followed.
Since the alleged appointment was prior to the creation of the post and contrary to statutory provisions, no
legal right to salary from the State exchequer could arise.
Accordingly, no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution was made out.
5 All. Shailendra Kumar Misra Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

1951
Both writ petitions were therefore dismissed.

CASE LAW CITED
Harpal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 1 UPLBEC 37 (Full Bench)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Y.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and
Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 6, 7 and 8.

2. Writ Petition No. 2642 (SS) of 1999 has been filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 8.10.1997 passed by the Joint Director, Secondary Education, IX Region, Faizabad (opposite
party No.3), whereby financial approval to his appointment has been refused.

3. Writ Petition No. 5116 (SS) of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 30.7.2007, whereby a Committee consisting of the Joint Director, Secondary Education, IX
Region, Faizabad, the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, IX Region, Faizabad and the District
Inspector of Schools, Faizabad, rejected his representation for payment of salary in pursuance of
the ad interim order dated 16.11.1999 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 2642 (SS) of 1999.

4. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the above-captioned writ
petitions, therefore, they are being decided by a common order.

5. According to the petitioner, Shrangi Rishi Chchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ishapur,
Mahboobganj, Faizabad [hereinafter referred to as the "Institution"] was established as Junior High
School in the year 1975. Thereafter, in the year 1984, the Institution was upgraded to High School
Level with the recognition of the competent authorities of the Education Department. In the
institution, initially the sanctioned strength of Class-IV employees was three against which the
Principal of the Institution made appointments in accordance with the Act and the Rules.

6. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on institution being
recognized as High School in the year 1984, the Principal of the Institution made appointment of
the petitioner on the post of Daftari on 10.3.1991. In pursuance of the order dated 10.3.1991, the
petitioner joined his duties as Daftari in the institution on 16.3.1991. Thereafter, vide order dated
21.4.1995, the Director, Secondary Education, IX Region, Faizabad, sanctioned ten posts, including
one post of Daftari in the pay-scale of Rs.775-1025/-. In these backgrounds, submission of the
learned Counsel is that since the appointment of the petitioner was properly made against the
sanctioned post, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad, vide letter dated 24.1.1996,
regularized the services of the petitioner against the sanctioned post of Daftari with effect from the
date when the said post was created or sanctioned.

7. It has been stated by the petitioner that vide Government Order dated 8.2.1996, the
institution along with other institution were taken in the list of grant-in-aid. Thereafter, bill for
1952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
payment of salaries to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution w.e.f. 1.4.1996 in
pursuance of the Government Order dated 8.2.1996 was sent to the District Inspector of Schools,
Faizabad. In the meantime, one Sri Chchitta Bahal, who is said to be President of the Committee of
Management of the Institution, made a complaint to the Joint Director, Secondary Education, IX
Region, Faizabad, alleging therein that the creation of posts had been obtained by misrepresentation
and producing forged documents, therefore, such creation of the posts are not in accordance with
law.

8. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the said complaint, the Joint Director,
Secondary Education, IX Region, Faizabad, vide order dated 8.10.1997, cancelled the order with
regards to creation of posts and also refused to grant financial approval to the appointments made
on the created post. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ
petition No. 2642 (SS) of 1999 inter alia on the grounds that the impugned order dated 8.10.1997
has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other staff
of the institution.

9. While entertaining writ petition No. 2642 (S/S) of 1999, this Court, vide order dated
28.5.1999, as an interim measure, directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation.

10. In pursuance of the order dated 28.5.1999, a Committee comprising of the Joint
Director, Secondary Education, IX Region, Faizabad, the Deputy Director, Secondary Education,
IX Region, Faizabad and the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad was constituted and after
examining the pleas of the petitioner, rejected his representation for payment of salary vide order
dated 30.07.2007, inter alia on the grounds that petitioner's appointment on the post of Daftari was
absolutely illegal as the Committee of Management as well as District Inspector of Schools,
Faizabad did not accept the plea of the petitioner with regards to his working on the post of Daftari,
therefore, he was not entitled to the payment of his salary.

11. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2007, the petitioner has approached this
Court by filing writ petition No. 5116 (SS) of 2007, inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner was
appointed against the sanctioned posts and his appointment was duly approved by the competent
authority i.e. the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad.

12. Per contra, Dr. R.S. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee of
Management as well as private respondent No.8-Mahendra Dutt Pandey has submitted that the
petitioner was neither appointed in the institution nor worked in the institution. The post of Daftari
was not sanctioned on the date of alleged appointment of the petitioner in the year 1991. He further
submitted that the post of Daftari in the institution is a promotional post and, therefore, one
Mahendra Dutt Pandey, who was working as Class-IV in the institution, was promoted on the post
of Daftari and is working on the post of Daftari.

13. Submission of Dr. Pandey is that father of the petitioner, namely, Krishna Kumar
Misra, who was working as Accounts Officer in the office of District Inspector of Schools in the
5 All. Shailendra Kumar Misra Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

1953
year 1995-96, misused his position and added the name of the petitioner in the list sent for approval
in the year 1996 and got approval with regard to persons working in the institution after the
institution was taken in the list of grant-in-aid. On the basis of addition of his name illegally in the
list of employees working in the Institution, the petitioner tried to get his salary.

14. Further submission of Dr. Pandey is that the petitioner also got manufactured a forged
letter of Shri Ram Kumar Verma, the then Principal of the Institution dated 7.3.2006, showing that
he is working in the institution since 16.3.1991. When Shri Ram Kumar Verma, the then Principal
of the Institution came to know about his letter dated 7.3.2006, he filed an affidavit along with
covering letter informing the Joint Director of Education, Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad to the effect
that he has not written any such letter as has been filed by the petitioner (Shri Shailedra Kumar
Misra) and the petitioner has never been appointed on the post of Daftari nor he is working in the
institution.

15. Dr Pandey, learned Counsel for the Committee of Management and private respondent
has contended that in order to comply the ad interim order dated 28.5.1999 passed in writ petition
No. 2642 (S/S) of 1999 with regards to deciding the petitioner's representation dated 30.7.2007, a
Committee comprising of Joint Director of Education, the Director, Secondary Education, IX
Region, Faizabad and District Inspector of School, Faizabad were constituted and on examining the
pleas of the petitioner as well as going through the record, the Committee found that the allegations
made by the petitioner with regard to the appointment and working in the institution are false and
incorrect as the name of the petitioner has been illegally included in the list of members working in
the institution at the time of its inclusion in the list of grant-in-aid. The Committee, after giving
opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and receiving comments from the Institution as
well as the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad, rejected the representation made by the
petitioner vide impugned order.

16. Lastly Dr. Pandey has submitted that Mahendra Dutt Pandey, who is respondent No.8
in writ petition No. 5116 (S/S) of 2007, was appointed on the post of Parichayk in 1982 and he was
promoted on the post of Daftari in the year 1996 and since then, he is working on the post of
Daftari. Therefore, the impugned orders rejecting the claim of the petitioner have rightly been
passed by the respondents.

17. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that on 16.3.1991 when the petitioner's claim
to be engaged as Daftari, there was no sanctioned post of Daftari in the Institution as the same was
sanctioned by the Director vide order dated 21.4.1995. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he
was appointed on the post of Daftari on 16.3.1991 is illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of
law. He further submitted that the appointing authority i.e. Principal and the Manager of the
Institution has accepted that the petitioner is not working in the College, therefore, he is not entitled
for any payment from State exchequer after the Institution was taken on grant-in-aid list. The
Regional Committee headed by Joint Director of Education, IX Region, Faizabad has rightly taken
a decision for payment of salary only to those employees of the Institution who were duly
appointed i.e. appointment was made against duly sanctioned/created post and further appointment
1954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was made after following procedure prescribed under law and, therefore, the writ petition deserves
to be dismissed with cost.

18. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone
through the record.

19. The stand of the writ petitioner is that the institution was recognized as a High School
in the year 1984 and on 10.3.1991, the Principal of the Institution had appointed the petitioner on
the post of Daftari. In pursuance of the appointment letter dated 10.3.1991, the petitioner joined on
the post of Daftari in the Institution on 16.3.1991. Whereas the stand of the State authorities as well
as the Committee of Management of the Institution are that the petitioner has neither been
appointed on the post of Daftari nor he has ever worked in the Institution. The then Principal has
filed an affidavit along with covering letter informing the Joint Director of Education, Faizabad
Division, Faizabad that he has not written any such letter as has been filed by the writ petitioner
and the petitioner has never been appointed by him on the post of Daftari nor he is working in the
Institution, therefore, the Regional Committee headed by Joint Director of Education, has rejected
the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary.

20. It is relevant to add here that there is no quarrel of the fact between the parties that the
post of Daftari in the institution is a promotional post and persons who are working on Class-IV
post are to be given promotion on the post of Daftari in the institution.

21. From perusal of the pleadings and going through the submissions of the learned
Counsel for the parties, one thing is clear that there is disputed question of fact viz. on one hand,
the petitioner's claim to be appointed as Daftari in the institution on 16.3.1991 and on the other
hand, Committee of Management as well as the State authorities have stated that the petitioner has
neither been appointed on the post of Daftari on 16.3.1991 nor he has ever worked in the institution
as on the alleged date of his appointment, there was no sanctioned post of Daftari in the Institution.

22. The questions whether the petitioner was appointed on the post of Daftari on 16.3.1991
or not; whether there was any sanctioned post of Daftari in the institution at the time when the
petitioner was appointed or not; whether the alleged appointment of the petitioner on the post of
Daftari in the institution was made by the then Principal of the Institution or not; and whether the
then Principal has filed false affidavit before the Joint Director of Education, Faizabad denying the
appointment letter ever issued by him appointing the petitioner in the Institution, are the disputed
questions, which are involved in the present case. Therefore, in view of the the settled legal
proposition that a writ involving disputed questions of facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is not maintainable, therefore, the objections raised by the learned Counsel for the
respondents during the course of arguments have substance and is tenable in the eyes of law and on
this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

23. The provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed
thereunder are applicable to the recognized aided and unaided institutions equally. Regulations 101
5 All. Shailendra Kumar Misra Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

1955
and 102 of Chapter III in U.P. Intermediate Education Act covers the field with respect to the
appointment of the teaching and non-teaching staff in the recognized aided institution. Regulations
101 and 102 of the Regulations, which are relevant for the present case, are extracted below :

101. Appointing Authority except with prior approval of Inspector shall not fill up
any vacancy of non-teaching post of any recognised aided institution.

Provided that filling of the vacancy on the post of Jamadar may be granted by the
Inspector.

102. Information regarding vacancy as a result of retirement of any employee
holding a non-teaching post in any recognised, aided institution shall be given before three months
of his date of retirement and information about any vacancy falling due to death, resignation or for
any other reasons shall be intimated to the Inspector by the appointing authority within seven days
of the date of such occurrence."

24. Regulation 101, as quoted above, uses two words, namely, "prior approval" and
"permission". The first part of the regulation 101 provides that appointing authority except with
prior approval of Inspector shall not fill up any vacancy of non-teaching post of any recognized
aided institution, whereas second part of the regulation provides that permission for filling of post
of Sweeper (Jamadar) can be given by Inspector. Thus, the statute uses both the word "prior
approval" and "permission".

25. In the present case, apparently, there is nothing on record, which indicates that post of
Daftari was ever advertised by the Institution in the year 1991 with prior approval of the District
Inspector of Schools and the petitioner, in pursuance of the same, applied and his name was
recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment on the post of Daftari in the Institution
with permission of the District Inspector of Schools. Petitioner has only brought on record the
appointment order dated 10.3.1991, which are said to be issued by the Principal of the Institution
contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition No. 5116 (SS) of 2007. The existence of document
annexed as Annexure No.3 has been denied by the then Principal of the institution by filing an
affidavit before the Joint Director of Education, Faizabad and by the Regional Committee headed
by the Joint Director of Education, Faizabad as well as the Committee of Management of
Institution. Therefore, the alleged appointment letter contained in Annexure No. 3 cannot be looked
into as a valid document under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

26. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Harpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others
: (2016) 1 UPLBEC 37 has examined the creation of the post of Daftari and requirement for the
said post in the recognized aided institution. The relevant paragraphs 5 and 6 are extracted below :

5.The post of Daftari in non-governmental aided secondary institutions was created
initially by a Government Order dated 20 November 1977. The post was categorised as a Group-D
post by a Government Order dated 10 August 1978. The pay scale admissible to the post was fixed
1956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with effect from 1 May 1978 at Rs.170-225. The pay scale applicable to other Class IV posts
continued to be Rs.165-215. In the year 1975, the Chaturth Varg Karmachari Sewa Niyamawali,
1975 came to be issued. Under rule 6 of this Niyamawali, it was contemplated that the post of
Daftari would be filled up by way of promotion from amongst educated Chaprasis, Messengers and
Farrases. On 11 May 2001, an administrative instruction was issued by the Secretary (Secondary
Education) in the State Government to all the Directors of Education, stating that in regulation 2 (1)
of Chapter III of the Regulations of 1921, it had been prescribed that the minimum educational
qualifications for Class-IV employees in non-governmental recognised higher secondary
institutions would be the same as those which have been prescribed for correspondiThe provision
of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder are applicable to
the recognized aided and unaided institutions equallyng employees in government higher secondary
educational institutions as applicable from time to time. However, it was stated that no procedure
has been prescribed specifically for appointment and selection of Class-IV employees. In this
background, the administrative instruction stated that the procedure which was prescribed by the
Class-IV (Group-D) Employees Service Rules, 1985 would govern and that all appointments,
which were made in breach of those provisions, would have to be dealt with. Finally, it was stated
in the administrative instruction that appropriate proposals may be forwarded for amending the
regulations. For convenience of reference, we are reproducing the communication of the Secretary
(Secondary Education) dated 11 May 2001:

प्रेषक,

पीएको० झा,
 सडर्व (मा०) डशक्षा,
उ0प्र0 शासि

सेवा में.
 डशक्षा डिदेशक (मा०)
 उिर प्रदेश, लिि
 डशक्षा अिुभाग-12

डवषयः अशासकीय सहायता प्राप्त माध्यडमक डवद्यालयों में र्तुथग श्रेणी कमगर्ाररयों की डियुखक्त की प्रडक्रया के
सम्बन्ध में।

महोदय,

माध्यडमक डशक्षा संशोडित अडिडियम 1921 के अध्याय तीि-डवडियम-2(1) में यह व्यवस्था दी गयी है डक
अशासकीय मान्यता प्राप्त सहायता प्राप्त उच्चतर माध्यडमक डवद्यालयों में र्तुथग श्रेणी कमगर्ाररयों की न्यूितम शैडक्षक योग्यता वही होगी
जो राजकीय उच्चिर माध्यडमक डवद्यालयों के समकक्षीय कमगर्ाररयों के डलए समययक पर डििागररत की गयी है. डकन्तु अडिडियम में
र्तुथग श्रेणी कमगर्ाररयों के ररक्त पदों के भरिे की प्रडकया स्पष्टरूप से वडणगत िहीं की गयी है।

2. यह स्पष्ट है डक अशासकीय सहायता प्राप्त माध्यडमक डवद्यालयों में शासि की उक्त अडिसूर्िा संख्या-
काडमगक-2-2017-1986 काडमगक-2 (1) लिि ऊ 8.9.1986 द्वारा प्रस्ताडवत समूह घ (कमगर्ारी सेवा प्रथम संशोिि) डियमावली 1986 के
प्राडविाि प्रभावी है।
5 All. Shailendra Kumar Misra Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

1957
3. इस सम्बन्ध में यह भी कहिे का डिदेश हआ है डक प्रश्गत डियमावली में डदये गये प्राडविािों के डवपरीत की
गयी डियुखक्तयों को डकसी भी दशा में मान्य ि डकया जाये तथा डियमावली के उल्लंघि करके डियुक्त करिे वाले प्रबंिक प्रिािार्ायग के
डवरूद्ध कायगवाही सुडिडश्चत की जावे। कृपया इस सम्बन्ध में अपिे स्तर से सभी डवभागीय अडिकाररयों को डदशा डिदेश देिे का कष्ट
करें।

4. साथ की उक्त प्राडविाि संगत डवडियम में डिडहत करिे हेतु यथोडर्त प्रस्ताव भेजें ताडक इस कायगवाही को
डवडिक रूप डदया जाये। इसे सवोच्च प्राथडमकिा देते हये यथा वांडछत प्रस्ताव 20-5-2001 तक प्राप्त करायें।

भवदीय
(पी० के० झा)
सडर्व, (मा०) डशक्षा

6. On the basis of the aforesaid administrative instruction, the Director of
Education, in turn, issued a communication dated 1 June 2001 to all the Joint Directors of
Education in the following terms:

र्तुथग श्रेणी कमगर्ारी की डियुखक्त प्रडक्रया

प्रेषक,
डशक्षा डिदेशक उिर प्रदेश
डशक्षा सामान्य (1) वृिीय अिुभाग
 इलाहाबाद।

सेवा में.
मण्डलीय संयुक्तः डशक्षा डिदेशक
 उिर प्रदेश।

पत्राकः सामान्य (1) वृिीय/1044/1109/2001-02

डवषयः अशासकीय सहायता प्राप्त माध्यडमक डवद्यालयों में र्तुथग श्रेणी कमगर्ाररयों की डियुखक्त की प्रडकया के
सम्बन्ध में।

महोदय,

उपयुगक्त डवषय की ओर आपका ध्याि आकडषगत करते हए डिवेदि है डक शासि िे अपिे पत्र संख्या-693/15-122001-1601/(793)/2000 डदिांक 11-5-2001 द्वारा यह डिदेश डदया है डक माध्यडमक डशक्षा संशोडित अडिडियम 1921 के अध्याय तीि
डवडियम-2 (1) में यह व्यवस्था दी गई है डक अशासकीय सहायता प्राप्त / सहायता प्राप्त उच्चतर माध्यडमक डवद्यालयों में र्तुथग श्रेणी
कमगर्ाररयों की न्यूितम शैडक्षक योग्यता वही होगी, जो राजकीय उच्चतर माध्यडमक डवद्यालयों में र्तुथग श्रेणी कमगर्ाररयों की न्यूितम
शैडक्षक योग्यता वही होगी, जो राजकीय उच्चिर माध्यडमक डवद्यालयों के समकक्षीय कमगर्ाररयों के डलए समय समय पर डििागररत की
गयी है डकन्तु अडिडियम में र्तुथग श्रेणी कमगर्ाररयों के ररक्त पदों के भरिे की प्रडकया स्पष्ट रूप से वडणगत िहीं की गयी है। यह स्पष्ट है
डक अशासकीय सहायता प्राप्त माध्यडमक डवद्यालयों में शासि की उक्त संख्या-काडमगक-2-2017-1986 काडमगक-2 (1) लिि ऊ 8
1986 द्वारा प्रख्याडपत समूह घ कमगर्ारी सेवा प्रथम संशोिि डियमावली, 1986 से प्राडविाि प्रभावी है। अडिसूर्िा डसतम्बर,

अतः शासि िे पत्र संख्या: 693/15-12-2001-1601/(793)/2000 डदिांक 11-5-2001 में डदये गये उक्त
डिदेशािुसार कायगवाही अंडकत करायें तथा प्रश्मत डियमावली में डदये गये प्राडविािों के डवपरीत की गई डियुखक्तयों को डकसी भी दशा
1958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
में मान्य ि डकया जाये तथ डियमावली का उल्लंघि करके डियुखक्त करिे वाले प्रबन्धक / प्रिािार्ायग के डवरूद्ध कायगवाही सुडिडश्चत की
जाये।

भवदीय

डमत्र लाल, अपर डशक्षा डिदेशक (मा०)।"

27. It is an admitted position of the Counsel for the parties, especially learned Counsel for
the petitioner Mr. Y.K. Mishra that post of Daftari is a promotional post and the petitioner was
appointed on 16.3.1991 without their being creation of any post of Daftari in the institution. It is
also admitted position that post of Daftari in the institution was created vide order dated 21.4.1995,
therefore, no appointment can said to be legally made on the post of Daftari prior to 21.4.1995.
While making appointment on the post of Daftari, procedure was also required to be followed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the procedure was followed. Even
otherwise, as stated hereinabove, the post of Daftari is the promotion post, therefore, no direct
recruitment on the post of Daftari could have been done on the said post.

28. In view of the above, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
made out. The writ petition is deserves to be dismissed.

29. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

30. There is no order as to costs.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 2788 Of 2015
&
Criminal Appeal No.- 3755 Of 2015

Shashi ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
Rohit Shukla, Deepak Dubey

Counsel for Respondent:
Govt. Advocate