# Smt. Anju Agarwal v. The State of U.P. & Ors. 420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 419
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-24
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 32992 of 2022
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-anju-agarwal-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-420-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-49147
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - The U.P. Municipalities Act,
1916 - Section 48 - Removal of President -
Reasons
are
the
links
between
the
material, the foundation for their erection
and the actual conclusions - not only
administrative but also judicial order must
be supported by reasons, recorded in it -
reason
is
the
heartbeat
of
every
conclusion - recording of reasons in
writing
is
mandatory
to
fulfill
the
requirements of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution and Section 48 (2-A) of the
Act.(Para - 10)

Petitioner removed from office of President of
Nagar Palika Parishad - submitted detailed
explanation - specifically denied charges -
charges of serious nature - based on disputed
facts as well as record - respondent no. 1
(State) not examined issues independently -
quote from report of District Magistrate -
abruptly concluded - charges found proved -
removed - no independent application of
mind.(Para - 11)

HELD:-The report of District Magistrate called
for by State Government in response to person
charged is not final word nor a substitute to the
statutory requirement of holding a full-fledged
inquiry and recording of reasons by the State
Government. Impugned order quashed and
open to State Government to pass a fresh order
in accordance with law.(Para -12 )

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Smt. Anju Agarwal Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
419
intention of the Parliament when it
introduced the Legal Services Authorities
Amendment Act. Its main goal was still the
conciliation and settlement of disputes in
relation to public utilities, and a decision on
merits always being the last resort. In this
view of the matter, it was held that
conciliation proceedings under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities
Amendment Act are mandatory in nature.
Paragraph 37 of the aforesaid judgement is
reproduced below:-

"37. Section 22-C(8) is amply clear that
it only comes into effect once an agreement
under Section 22-C(7) has failed. The
corollary of this is that the proposed terms of
settlement under Section 22-C(7), and the
conciliation proceedings preceding it, are
mandatory. If Permanent Lok Adalats are
allowed to bypass this step just because a
party is absent, it would be tantamount to
deciding disputes on their merit ex parte and
issuing awards which will be final, binding
and will be deemed to be decrees of civil
courts. This was simply not the intention of
the Parliament when it introduced the Legal
Services Authorities Amendment Act. Its main
goal was still the conciliation and settlement
of disputes in relation to public utilities, with
a decision on merits always being the last
resort. Therefore, we hold that conciliation
proceedings under Section 22-C of the LSA
Act are mandatory in nature."

19. From perusal of the aforesaid, this
Court is of the opinion that the law is now well
settled that in the absence of following the
prescribed procedure as specially provided
under Section 22(C)(7) of the Legal Services
Authorities Amendment Act by the Permanent
Lok Adalat, the order/award is vitiated.

20. In the present case, Permanent Lok
Adalat Moradabad does not follow the
aforesaid procedure as provided under the
Legal Services Authorities Amendment Act,
therefore, the award is vitiated and illegal in
the eyes of law, the same is liable to be set
aside and is hereby set aside.

21. Since no reply has been filed by the
petitioner before the Permanent Lok Adalat,
Moradabad, he is directed to file reply in the
aforesaid case along-with copy of this order
expeditiously.

22.

Permanent
Lok
Adalat
Moradabad is directed to pass fresh order
after following the complete procedure
under the law as well as the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Canara Bank (supra) most expeditiously
and preferably within a period of four
months from the date reply filed by the
petitioner.

23. In view of the facts as narrated
above, writ petition is liable to be allowed and
the same is hereby allowed.

24. No order as to costs.

25. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to
communicate this order to the Permanent Lok
Adalat, Moradabad immediately.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 419
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 32992 of 2022

Smt. Anju Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Vivek
Mishra,
Sri
Shashi
Nandan(Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, Sri Atul Tej
Khulshrestha, Sri Nipun Singh, Sri Anurag
Khanna(Sr. Advocate)

(A) Civil Law - The U.P. Municipalities Act,
1916 - Section 48 - Removal of President -
Reasons
are
the
links
between
the
material, the foundation for their erection
and the actual conclusions - not only
administrative but also judicial order must
be supported by reasons, recorded in it -
reason
is
the
heartbeat
of
every
conclusion - recording of reasons in
writing
is
mandatory
to
fulfill
the
requirements of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution and Section 48 (2-A) of the
Act.(Para - 10)

Petitioner removed from office of President of
Nagar Palika Parishad - submitted detailed
explanation - specifically denied charges -
charges of serious nature - based on disputed
facts as well as record - respondent no. 1
(State) not examined issues independently -
quote from report of District Magistrate -
abruptly concluded - charges found proved -
removed - no independent application of
mind.(Para - 11)

HELD:-The report of District Magistrate called
for by State Government in response to person
charged is not final word nor a substitute to the
statutory requirement of holding a full-fledged
inquiry and recording of reasons by the State
Government. Impugned order quashed and
open to State Government to pass a fresh order
in accordance with law.(Para -12 )

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shaila Tahir Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , Writ - C
No. 21595 of 2022

2. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs District Collector,
Raigad & ors. , (2012) 4 SCC 407

3. Sanjeev Agrawal Vs St. of U.P. , 2011 (6)
AWC 5502

4. Girish Chand Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
2007 AWC (6) 6051

5. Umesh Baijal & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
(2004) 2 UPL BEC 1235

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta & Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vivek
Mishra, for the petitioner, Sri M.C.
Chaturvedi learned Additional Advocate
General, for the State Respondent, Shri
Anurag Khanna, learned Senior counsel
assisted by Shri Nipun Singh, for the
Intervenor and Shri Atul Tej Kulshrestha,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6.

2. The petitioner is challenging the
order dated 10.10.2022 by which she has
been removed from the office of President
of Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffar Nagar.
The order has been passed by respondent
no. 1 in exercise of power under section 48
of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (
hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. Initially, an order was passed on
19.07.2022 ceasing the financial power of
the petitioner, pending inquiry in relation to
charges of irregularities in award of
contract, defalcation of accounts, failure to
perform duties attached to her post and
causing
damage
to
the
property
of
municipality . The said order was subjected
to challenge by the petitioner in Writ -C
No. 24233 of 2022 on the ground that the
explanations submitted by her on 2.5.2022
and 8.7.2022 in response to show cause
notice
dated
28.03.2022
were
not
considered. During course of hearing of the
said writ petition, a statement was made on
1 All. Smt. Anju Agarwal Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
421
behalf of the State respondents that the
reply submitted by the petitioner on
08.07.2022
had
been
received
on
21.07.2022, after passing of the order
impugned in the writ petition. The
submission on behalf of the petitioner was
that the order ceasing her financial power
did not consider even the reply submitted
by her on 02.05.2022 and there was no
independent application of mind to the
material available on record. The writ
petition was decided by order dated
2.9.2022. The order impugned was quashed
with liberty to respondent no. 1 to pass a
fresh order in accordance with law. While
giving the aforesaid liberty, it was clarified
that respondent no. 1 shall consider the
reply submitted by the petitioner on
02.05.2022 as well as the reply dated
08.07.2022, which had concededly been
received by that time.

4. On 23rd September, 2022, a notice
was issued to the petitioner requiring her to
remain present on 26.09.2022 for personal
hearing before respondent no. 1. The
petitioner appeared on that date and
submitted a written note and requested that
copies of the comments/reports obtained by
respondent
no.
1
from
the
District
Magistrate in response to her reply be made
available to her to enable her to rebut the
same. It is her specific case that on that
date, no hearing took place. The petitioner
has also specifically alleged that the State
Government did not supply copy of the
report of the District Magistrate dated
19.09.2022 to her, despite written request
made by her and proceeded to pass the
impugned order removing her from the
office of President, Nagar Palika Parishad,
Muzaffar Nagar.

5. The submissions made by Shri
Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner are recorded in
our order dated 22.11.2022, which is as
follows:-

" Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Shri Vivek Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order directing removal of the
petitioner from the post of Chairperson, Nagar
Palika Parishad, Muzaffarnagar is ex-facie
illegal inasmuch as; (a) no enquiry has been
held, (b) there is no independent application of
mind by the State Government to the
explanation submitted by the petitioner, and (c)
the report obtained from the District Magistrate
dated 19.9.2022 has been blindly relied upon
without providing its copy to the petitioner."

6. Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Additional Advocate General has received
instructions from the State respondents. He
admits that report of the District Magistrate
dated 19.09.2022 was not made available to
the petitioner. He places reliance on para 19
of the counter affidavit, wherein it is alleged
that the petitioner never requested for copy of
the said report being made available to her.
He, however, does not dispute that the
primary consideration in removing the
petitioner from the post of President is the
report of the District Magistrate dated
19.09.2022. He also could not dispute that
apart from calling for explanation of the
petitioner and thereafter obtaining report
from the District Magistrate in reference to
the reply submitted by the petitioner, no oral
inquiry was held.

7. As noted above, the charges are of
serious nature. The petitioner has specifically
denied the charges and had offered a detailed
explanation to each charge.

8. In Shaila Tahir vs. State of U.P.
and 2 others1 decided on 13.10.2022, this
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court, while dealing with a case of a
similar nature relating to removal of
President
of
Nagar
Palika
Parishad,
examined the scope of inquiry to be held
under Section 48 of the Act. Taking notice
of the amendment made in the Constitution
by
the
Constitution
(Seventy
Fourth
Amendment) Act, 1992 and relying on the
judgement of the Supreme Court in Ravi
Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector,
Raigad and others2, and Division Bench
judgements of this Court in Sanjeev
Agrawal vs. State of U.P.3, Girish Chand
Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others4,
and Umesh Baijal and others vs. State of
U.P. and others5, it has been held that
removal of elected head of a local selfgovernment castes stigma on that person
and has the effect of taking away valuable
rights. Such a person is not only removed
from the office held by him/her but the
electoral college is also deprived of the
representation by such person. He/she also
stands disqualified to contest election for a
stipulated period.

9. The standard of proof in any
enquiry held for removal of an elected
representative is of a much higher degree as
compared to the case of a Government
Servant. The principles of natural justice
are required to be given full play and
proper opportunity of placing the defence is
a must.

10. The recording of reasons in
writing is also mandatory to fulfil the
requirements of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution and Section 48 (2-A) of the
Act. Some of the relevant observations
made in this behalf in Shaila Tahir (supra)
are reproduced below:-

"23. In the instant case, the petitioner,
who is President of Municipality, would
stand disqualified from contesting a reelection as President or Member for a
period of five years from the date of her
removal in view of Section 48 (4) of the
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 [the removal
being under clause (a) and sub-clause (vi),
(vii) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of
Section 48].

24. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 48
contemplates making of such inquiry as
may be considered necessary by the State
Government
after
considering
the
explanation that may be offered by the
President. An order of removal should be in
writing and contain reasons for removal of
the President from office. The said
provision is quoted below for convenience
of reference:-

(2-A)
After
considering
any
explanation that may be offered by the
President and making such enquiry as it
may
consider
necessary,
the
State
Government may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, remove the President
from his office.

26. What is nature and scope of
inquiry which is required to be held under
Section 48 was considered by this Court in
Umesh Baijal and others Vs. State of U.P.
and another6. It has been held that there
could be cases where the charges are
admitted and in which event, it would not
be necessary to hold a regular inquiry and
examine witnesses etc. There may be cases
where the allegations are based on
complaint made by certain persons. In such
cases, if the State intends to rely on
affidavit filed by the complainant, it has to
give
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
Chairperson
to
cross-examine
the
complainant.
In
a
given
case,
the
allegations may be of a very serious nature
and
which
have
to
be
proved
by
documentary as well as oral evidence and
in such cases, full fledged inquiry would be
1 All. Smt. Anju Agarwal Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
423
required, as merely calling for explanation
and considering the same would not meet
the requirements of law. The relevant
paragraphs from the said judgment are as
follows:-

"13. Thus, it is evident that if a
Chairman
is
removed
under
these
provisions, it would have a very serious
repercussion and consequence not only on
the Chairman but also on the constituency,
which he represented because he is being
removed
from
the
membership
also,
therefore, it cannot be permissible in law to
remove him without complying with the
requirement of law, as required under the
facts and circumstances of a particular
case. Sub-section (2A) of Section 48 of the
Act, 1916 provides for a procedure of
removal stipulating that after considering
any explanation that may be offered by the
President and making such enquiry as it
may
consider
necessary,
the
State
Government may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, remove him. The law
does not permit or give unfettered powers
to the State Government for passing an
order of removal of the Chairman merely
after considering his explanation to the
show cause. It would depend upon the facts
of each case as to whether an enquiry is
required. There may be a case of admission
by the President himself or the case against
him is of such a nature for which he can
furnish no explanation or the facts of a
case are so admitted or admittedly such
that no explanation is required at all, in
such eventuality, it will not be necessary to
hold a regular enquiry and examine the
witnesses etc. giving an opportunity of
cross-examination of the witness. There
may be a case where the State is
considering the affidavits filed by certain
persons
complaining
against
the
misconduct of the Chairman, if State wants
to
take
into
consideration
the
said
affidavits and in his explanation the
Chairman denies the allegations, the
affidavit cannot be relied upon without
giving an opportunity to the Chairman to
cross-examine the deponents, as required
under the provisions of Order XIX, Rule 2
of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the
reason that the Code itself is nothing but
codification of the principles of natural
justice. The provisions of Order XIX, Rule 2
of the Code become mandatory.

39. Thus, in view of the above, it
cannot be held that in each and every case,
non-observance of principles of natural
justice would vitiate the order. It has to be
understood in the context and factssituation of each case and requirement of
statutory
Rules
applicable
therein.
However, in a given case, if the allegations
are of a, serious nature and has to be
proved on a documentary as well as on oral
evidence, it is desirable to have a
fulfledged enquiry for the reason that
removal only on asking the explanation and
consideration
thereof,
would
not
be
sufficient to meet the requirement of law
unless the facts are admitted or undeniable.
It is not possible to lay down any straitjacket formula as in what cases the
fulfledged enquiry is to be held and in what
cases removal is permissible on asking
office bearers to furnish the explanation to
the charges. It will depend on the facts of
an individual case."

27. In Sanjeev Agrawal (supra), after
considering the Division Bench judgment in
Umesh Baijal and another Division Bench
judgement in Shamim Ahmad (Dr.) Vs.
State of U.P. and another7, it was
concluded as follows:-

10. Thus, in our view, it is clear that
once an explanation is submitted by the
President denying the charges, it is
incumbent upon the State Government to
make "such enquiry as it may consider
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
necessary" before passing an order of
removal. The word "inquiry" contemplates
investigation.
Therefore,
where
the
President denies the charges and offers his
explanation, the State Government is
required to consider his explanation. If the
State Government is satisfied with the
explanation offered by the President, in that
case, nothing further is required to be done
other than passing a consequential order
dropping the proceedings. However, if the
State Government is not satisfied with the
explanation, in that case, the State
Government is required to enquire into the
matter by holding a full-fledged enquiry.

28. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs.
District Collector, Raigad and others, the
Supreme Court also considered the issue as
to
whether
recording of
reasons
is
mandatory while passing an order of
removal. The Supreme Court placed
reliance on its previous judgements in case
of Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India8, Sant
Lal Gupta Vs. Modern Coop. Group
Housing Society Ltd9 and thereafter
concluded by holding as follows:-
46. The emphasis on recording reason is
that if the decision reveals the `inscrutable
face of the sphinx', it can be its silence,
render it virtually impossible for the courts
to perform their appellate function or
exercise the power of judicial review in
adjudging the validity of the decision. Right
to reason is an indispensable part of a
sound judicial system, reasons at least
sufficient to indicate an application of mind
of the authority before the court. Another
rationale is that the affected party can
know why the decision has gone against
him. One of the salutary requirements of
natural justice is spelling out reasons for
the order made. In other words, a speaking
out, the inscrutable face of the sphinx is
ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or
quasi-judicial performance.

29. The quotation from Krishna Swami
(supra) relied upon in the said judgment
reads thus:-

"Reasons are the links between the
material, the foundation for their erection
and the actual conclusions. They would
also demonstrate how the mind of the
maker was activated and actuated and their
rational nexus and synthesis with the facts
considered and the conclusions reached.
Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and
unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair
procedure offending Article 21."

30. In Sant Lal Gupta (supra), it was
held as follows:-
.
"27. It is a settled legal proposition
that not only administrative but also
judicial order must be supported by
reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while
deciding an issue, the Court is bound to
give reasons for its conclusion. It is the
duty and obligation on the part of the Court
to record reasons while disposing of the
case. The hallmark of order and exercise of
judicial power by a judicial forum is for the
forum to disclose its reasons by itself and
giving of reasons has always been insisted
upon as one of the fundamentals of sound
administration of the justice - delivery
system, to make it known that there had
been proper and due application of mind to
the issue before the Court and also as an
essential requisite of the principles of
natural justice.

"3. The giving of reasons for a
decision is an essential attribute of judicial
and judicious disposal of a matter before
Courts, and which is the only indication to
know about the manner and quality of
exercise undertaken, as also the fact that
the Court concerned had really applied its
mind."

The reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order
and without the same, the order becomes
1 All. Smt. Anju Agarwal Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
425
lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with
objectivity. The absence of reasons renders
an
order
indefensible/unsustainable
particularly when the order is subject to
further challenge before a higher forum.
Recording of reasons is principle of natural
justice and every judicial order must be
supported by reasons recorded in writing. It
ensures transparency and fairness in
decision making. The person who is
adversely affected must know why his
application has been rejected."

31. The consistent judicial opinion
thus is that recording of reasons in writing
is not merely an attribute of the principles
of natural justice but also essence of
transparency and fairness in decision
making process. It has been held to be a
hallmark of sound and objective exercise of
power. An order bereft of reasons violates
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. ".

11. Coming to the facts of the instant
case, as noted above, the petitioner had
twice submitted detailed explanation (dated
02.05.2022
and
08.07.2022).
In
her
explanation, she has specifically denied the
charges. The charges are of serious nature
and are based on disputed facts as well as
the record. However, respondent no. 1
instead
of
examining
these
issues
independently
in
the
light
of
the
explanation offered and the material
available on record, proceeded to quote
from the report of the District Magistrate
dated 19.09.2022 in extenso (in Paragraph
6 of its order) and thereafter it has abruptly
been concluded that the charges are found
proved and accordingly, she has been
removed.
There
is
no
independent
application of mind.

12. In Shaila Tahir (supra), we have
held that the report of District Magistrate
called for by the State government in
response to the reply submitted by the
person charged is only an opinion which
could have been considered by the State
Government alongwith the defence and
evidence of the person charged. It is not the
final word nor a substitute to the statutory
requirement of holding a full-fledged
inquiry and recording of reasons by the
State Government while passing an order
of removal of the President in view of
Section 48(2-A) of the Act. Despite
exposition of law in the recently delivered
judgement, the State Government has
repeated the mistakes while passing the
instant order in a most casual manner.

13. Even the plea taken in paragraph
no. 19 of the counter affidavit that the
petitioner had not asked for the report of
District
Magistrate
dated
19.09.2022,
consequently, it was not supplied to her, is
not worthy of acceptance, firstly, for the
reason that it was the obligation of the State
Government to have supplied said report to
the petitioner if it was intending to rely on
the
same,
and
second,
because
the
petitioner had specifically asked for a copy
of the said report in the written brief
submitted by her on 26.09.2022, the date
fixed for hearing.

14. Since the State Government has
merely endorsed the report of the District
Magistrate
dated
19.09.2022,
without
applying its own independent mind, the
impugned dated 10.10.2022 is held to be
untenable in law.

15. We accordingly quash the
impugned order dated 10.10.2022, leaving
it open to the State Government to pass a
fresh order in accordance with law.

16. As a result of the removal order
being quashed, it is further provided that
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the respondent shall not interfere in the
working of the petitioner as President of
Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffar Nagar
except in accordance with law.

17. The writ petition stands allowed
to the extent indicated above.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 426
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 47 of 2023

Babu Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shiv Nath Goswami, Sri Santosh Kumar
Ramakant Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shikhar Anand

A. Service Law - Selection grade salary -
Similarly situated employees were granted
selection grade - Benefit of GO dated
17.10.1985 claimed - There was delay of
32 years in approaching the authority -
Effect - Held, in case the respondents did
not pay any heed to the claim of the
petitioners, then, they should have agitate
the
issue
forthwith
by
preferring
appropriate application/representation or
to
approach
a
Court
of
law
but
approaching the authority concerned after
a period of almost 32 years seeking
selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.1982 to them,
cannot stand judicial scrutiny. (Para 13)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. C. Jacob Vs Director of Geology and Mining &
anr.; (2008) 10 SCC 115

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. The instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioners, Babu Ram,
Atar Singh, Juglal, Sadhu Ram, Ram
Singh,
Ravidutt
and
Phool
Singh,
challenging the judgment and order dated
25.01.2021 passed by the State Public
Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 24
of 2019 : Babu Ram and 13 others Vs.
State of U.P. and others as well as
judgment and order dated 28.09.2022
passed in Review Petition No. 15 of 2021
by the State Public Services Tribunal,
whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim
petition as well as review petition.

2. Shri Shiv Nath Goswami, learned
Counsel for the petitioner has sent an
illness slip. It appears that along with Shri
Shiv Nath Goswami, Advocate, the name
of Shri Santosh Kumar and Ramakant
Upadhyay has also been shown in the cause
list as Counsel for the petitioner but neither
they are present nor there is any request to
pass over or adjournment of the case. In
these backdrops, we proceeds to hear the
matter with the assistance of learned
Standing Counsel.

3. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh
Bisen, learned Standing Counsel for the
State/respondents no. 1 to 4 and perused
the impugned judgments as well as material
brought on record.

4. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioners were appointed on the post of
Vaccinator in the Health Department on
18.09.2067,
09.06.1973,
25.07.1962,
28.09.1971,
22.09.1978,
29.03.1971,