# Shashi Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 721 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-05-31 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32221 of 2011 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shashi-kumar-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41926 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Service Rules 2008-Rule 10-readwith U.P. Public Service (Relaxation of Age Limit) Rule 1992-Age relaxation for direct recruitment on Post of S.I.-age limit provided minimum 21 years-upper limit 28 years-argument that for last 7 years no vacancy advertised-hence entitled for relaxation-selection in every year can not be claimed as a matter of right-the provision of Rules 1992 not applicable for Police Personnel where specific Rules framed-Petitions misconceived dismissed. Held: Para 17 In view of the law laid down by the apex Court as well as this Court in Sanjay Agarwal (supra) and Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra (supra) making clear distinction between the Rules regulating "Recruitment" and those regulating "conditions of service", the Rules regulating age applicable before appointment is, therefore not a rule regulating conditions of service, hence is beyond the purview and ambit of Rule 28 of 2008 Rules and cannot be relaxed at all. Besides, as I already said, it is applicable to a person who has already been appointed and not one who has yet to be recruited. Case law discussed: 2007(6) ADJ 272(DB)=2007(5) ALJ 328(DB); 2000(3) AWC 2367; AIR 2002 SC 2322; 2005(2) AWC 1191=(2004) 3 UPLBEC 2778; (2005) 3 SCC 618; Sanjay Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and others WP No. 65189 of 2006, decided on 25.5.2007; 2008(1) ESC 595(DB); 1992 (3) SCALE 287=(1993) 3 SCC 575 ## Text 2 All Shashi Kumar Tripathi V. State of U.P. and another 721 5. Consolidation in respect of grove land cannot take place in the sense that a plot having grove cannot be given to any other person in rearrangement of chak. However, as far as question of title is concerned, consolidation courts have got full jurisdiction to decide the matter and bar of Section 49 squarely applies. In this regard reference may be made to Dalel Vs. Baroo, 1963 RD 67 (H.C. F.B.), Ram Dulare Vs. Ram Charan, 1977 RD 108 (H.C.), Shambhu Vs. D.D.C., 1975 AWC 469, Baijnath Rai Vs. D.D.C., 1986 RD 306 (D.B.) and Anwar Ali Vs. Munir Ali, 1981 RD 300 (H.C.). 6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and decrees passed by the lower appellate court and Board of Revenue are set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is affirmed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32221 of 2011 Shashi Kumar Tripathi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and another ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sandeep Chaturvedi Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997-Rule 4(2)-circle rate notified on 01.08.2010-objection against circle rate pending-such circle rate can be revised by D.M. On its own or on representationdirection to consider and decide the same within period of two months Held: Para 5 Rule 4(2) of the aforesaid Rules empowers the Collector, on being satisfied about the incorrectness of the circle rates, to revise the same within a period of two years from the date of fixation of the minimum rates. The said revision may be done by the Collector either at his own motion or on an application made to him in this behalf. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. ) 1. The Collector, Kanpur Nagar under the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 has prescribed the minimum rates for different categories of land which are commonly known as circle rates on 1.8.2010. 2. The petitioner has filed objection/representation against the fixation of the aforesaid rates vide application dated 26.2.2011, Annexure - 5 to the writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his aforesaid application/representation is not being considered and decided by the Collector, Kanpur Nagar, respondent No.2. 5. Rule 4(2) of the aforesaid Rules empowers the Collector, on being satisfied about the incorrectness of the circle rates, to revise the same within a period of two years from the date of fixation of the minimum rates. The said 722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 revision may be done by the Collector either at his own motion or on an application made to him in this behalf. 6. The petitioner having made an application complaining about the incorrectness of the circle rate, the Collector is bound to consider and decide the same. 7. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the above representation/application of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order/ 8. With aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.06.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34797 of 2011 Sunil Kumar Pandey and others ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.S. Baghel Sri Gautam Baghel Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. U.P. Police Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules 2008-Rule 10-readwith U.P. Public Service (Relaxation of Age Limit) Rule 1992-Age relaxation for direct recruitment on Post of S.I.-age limit provided minimum 21 years-upper limit 28 years-argument that for last 7 years no vacancy advertised-hence entitled for relaxation-selection in every year can not be claimed as a matter of right-the provision of Rules 1992 not applicable for Police Personnel where specific Rules framed-Petitions misconceived dismissed. Held: Para 17 In view of the law laid down by the apex Court as well as this Court in Sanjay Agarwal (supra) and Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra (supra) making clear distinction between the Rules regulating "Recruitment" and those regulating "conditions of service", the Rules regulating age applicable before appointment is, therefore not a rule regulating conditions of service, hence is beyond the purview and ambit of Rule 28 of 2008 Rules and cannot be relaxed at all. Besides, as I already said, it is applicable to a person who has already been appointed and not one who has yet to be recruited. Case law discussed: 2007(6) ADJ 272(DB)=2007(5) ALJ 328(DB); 2000(3) AWC 2367; AIR 2002 SC 2322; 2005(2) AWC 1191=(2004) 3 UPLBEC 2778; (2005) 3 SCC 618; Sanjay Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and others WP No. 65189 of 2006, decided on 25.5.2007; 2008(1) ESC 595(DB); 1992 (3) SCALE 287=(1993) 3 SCC 575 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. ) 1. Heard Sri P.S. Baghel, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel, for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. The petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the advertisement dated 19.5.2011 in so far as it provides upper age limit as 28 years and have also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide relaxation in age to