# Smt. Savitri Devi & Anr v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi & Ors. 1528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1527
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-28
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 340 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-savitri-devi-anr-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-varanasi-ors-1528-indian-50135
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Delay Condonation - Limitation
Act,1963 - Section 5 - U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, Section 11 (1), 48 (1) -
 Private
opposite
parties
filed
an
application before A.C.O. seeking mutation
on the basis of a Will-Deed allegedly
executed by one Sri Bhagauti, the original
tenure holder of the property, without
impleading the wife of late Bhagauti,
stating that she had died whereas she was
alive. Consolidation Officer directed that
the name of the private opposite parties
be entered in the Chak in question. Wife of
late Bhagauti was living with the opposite
parties and did not know about the
aforesaid order, being an illiterate lady;
therefore, she could not file any appeal
challenging the order dated 26.03.1981.
She became aware of the aforesaid
order in May 2005 when the behaviour
of the private opposite parties became
rude towards her. Thereafter, she filed
an appeal and revision. Both were
dismissed on the ground that there was
an inordinate delay of 24 years in
assailing the impugned order dated
26.03.1981 passed by the Consolidation
Officer. Held: At least one opportunity
should have been given to the wife of
late Bhagauti so that she could adduce
evidence apprising the authority that
there was no Will-Deed of her late
husband
in
favour
of
the
private
opposite parties. This is not a case
wherein the revision should have been
decided only on the ground that there
was an inordinate delay in assailing the
impugned order dated 26.03.1981.

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Smt. Savitri Devi & Anr. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi & Ors.
1527
decision in the case Kali Shanker Dwivedi
(supra) does not lay down the correct law.
However, we respectfully agree with the
view taken by the learned Judge in the case
of Sri Ram (supra)."

8. Therefore, learned counsel for the
petitioner has stated that the facts and
circumstances of the present case are similar to
that of Shri Ram (supra), thus, in view of the
decision of this Court in re; Shri Ram (supra)
and Ravi Shanker Tripathi (supra), this writ
petition is liable to be allowed.

9. Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned
counsel for the intervener has stated that in the
judgment of this Court in re; Shri Ram
(supra) and in re; Ravi Shanker Tripathi
(supra), the legal position has not been made
clear on the point that if any revision has been
filed
under
Section
218
before
the
Commissioner/Additional Commissioner and
after the deletion of Section 218 whether it
would be automatically decided under the
provisions of Section 219 of the amended Act.

10. Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi has
further submitted that since this legal position
has clearly and explicitly not been explained,
therefore, the submissions so raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are not
tenable in the eyes of law.

11. Shri A.S. Tiwari, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel has, however, tried to
defend the order dated 29.06.1999 but he
could not defend the impugned order in the
light of the decisions of this Court in re; Shri
Ram (supra) and Ravi Shanker Tripathi
(supra).

12. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the materials
available on record as well as the decisions of
this Court in re; Shri Ram (supra) and Ravi
Shanker Tripathi (supra), I am in agreement
on the position of law that since in the present
case, there is a transitory provision contained
in Section 10 of the 1997 Amendment Act
which saved only those proceedings which
were pending before the Board of Revenue,
therefore, the proceedings which were pending
before the Commissioner or the Additional
Commissioner on 18.08.1997 were required to
be decided under the provisions of Section 219
of the amended Act.

13. Under these circumstances, the
judgment passed by the Board of Revenue
dated 29.06.1999 (Annexure No.1) cannot
be sustained. Therefore, the order dated
29.06.1999 passed by the Board of
Revenue, U.P., Lucknow are hereby set
aside.

14. Liberty is given to the parties to file
an appropriate application/petition before
the Board of Revenue, strictly in terms of
law and if such application is filed, the same
shall be decided expeditiously, preferably
within a period of six months from the date
of its filing, by affording an opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned.

15. In view of the aforesaid terms, the
writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1527
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-B No. 340 of 2023

Smt. Savitri Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi &
Ors. ...Respondents
1528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ankit Mishra, Sri Mohd. Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey

Civil Law - Delay Condonation - Limitation
Act,1963 - Section 5 - U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, Section 11 (1), 48 (1) -
 Private
opposite
parties
filed
an
application before A.C.O. seeking mutation
on the basis of a Will-Deed allegedly
executed by one Sri Bhagauti, the original
tenure holder of the property, without
impleading the wife of late Bhagauti,
stating that she had died whereas she was
alive. Consolidation Officer directed that
the name of the private opposite parties
be entered in the Chak in question. Wife of
late Bhagauti was living with the opposite
parties and did not know about the
aforesaid order, being an illiterate lady;
therefore, she could not file any appeal
challenging the order dated 26.03.1981.
She became aware of the aforesaid
order in May 2005 when the behaviour
of the private opposite parties became
rude towards her. Thereafter, she filed
an appeal and revision. Both were
dismissed on the ground that there was
an inordinate delay of 24 years in
assailing the impugned order dated
26.03.1981 passed by the Consolidation
Officer. Held: At least one opportunity
should have been given to the wife of
late Bhagauti so that she could adduce
evidence apprising the authority that
there was no Will-Deed of her late
husband
in
favour
of
the
private
opposite parties. This is not a case
wherein the revision should have been
decided only on the ground that there
was an inordinate delay in assailing the
impugned order dated 26.03.1981.

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rikhdev & anr. Vs Additional District
Magistrate (Finance), Azamgarh & ors.[2012
(30) LCD 712]
2. Roop Narain & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors.2020 (38) LCD 2577

3. Ram Padarath & ors. Vs IInd Additional
District Judge, Sultanpur & ors.; Writ Petition
No.1732 of 1982

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Ali, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Upendra
Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-opposite parties and Sri Umesh
Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the
Caveators/ private opposite party Nos.4 to
7.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioners have prayed for the following
reliefs:-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned order dated 27.03.2023, passed
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Gonda in Revision No.530 of 2017 (Savitri
and another vs. Ram Dheeraj (Died) through
his legal representatives and others) filed
under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, the order dated 04.07.2016,
passed
by
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation, Gonda in Appeal No.769 of
2015-16 (Mst. Kalawati vs. Ram Dhani and
others), filed under Section 11 (1) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act and the order
dated
26.03.1981,
passed
by
the
Consolidation
Officer,
Kshetra
No.3,
Utraula, District-Gonda in Suit No.140 of
1980 (Ram Dhani and others vs. Bhagauti
and another), as contained in Annexure
Nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively to the writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties not to
5 All. Smt. Savitri Devi & Anr. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi & Ors.
1529
give effect to the impugned order dated
27.03.2023, passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Gonda in Revision
No.530 of 2017 (Savitri and another vs.
Ram Dheeraj (Died) through his legal
representatives and others) filed under
Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, the order dated 04.07.2016,
passed by the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, Gonda in Appeal No.769 of
2015-16 (Mst. Kalawati vs. Ram Dhani and
others), filed under Section 11 (1) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act and the
order dated 26.03.1981, passed by the
Consolidation
Officer,
Kshetra
No.3,
Utraula, District-Gonda in Suit No.140 of
1980 (Ram Dhani and others vs. Bhagauti
and another), as contained in Annexure
Nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively to the writ
petition.

 The opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3
may further be commanded to make
consequential entry in the name of
petitioners in the concerned records of the
land of Araji Chak No.268, Khata No.267/2
and 269 being legal heirs and daughters of
late Bhagauti, who was recorded tenure
holder of the aforesaid land."

3. The basic premise to assail the
impugned orders is that the private opposite
parties have filed an application dated
06.01.1981 before the court of Assistant
Consolidation Officer seeking mutation on
the basis of Will-Deed allegedly executed by
one Sri Bhaughati on 28.11.1980, the original
tenure holder of the property in question,
without impleading the wife of late Bhagauti
as a party of that case saying that she has died
whereas she was alive and remained alive for
quite long time thereafter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has drawn attention of this Court towards
an application dated 06.01.1981 (Annexure
No.5) wherein it has been categorically
indicated that the original tenure holder of
the land in question, namely, Sri Bhagauti,
has expired and in his life time he had
executed a Will in favour of the private
opposite parties. Sri Bhagauti was not
having any son (male child) and his wife is
also not alive. The applicants of that
application/ the private opposite parties
hereto have stated themselves as real
cousin and since they were looking after Sri
Bhagauti in his life time, therefore, Sri
Bhaugauti has executed a Will-Deed in
their favour. On the basis of the aforesaid
application, the Consolidation Officer has
directed for publication and the said
publication was issued on 08.01.1981. As
per the order dated 26.08.1981 passed by
the Consolidation Officer, no objection has
been filed on that publication. Therefore,
after recording the evidence of marginal
witness of the Will-Deed he directed that
the name of private opposite parties be
entered in the Chak in question i.e. Chak
No.268, 267/2 and 269.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has stated that since the mother of the
petitioners, namely, Smt. Kalawati, was
alive on 26.03.1981 and the application
dated
06.01.1981
was
a
fraudulent
application which provided that the mother
of the present petitioner, Smt. Kalawati,
was not alive, therefore, the order dated
26.03.1981 passed by the Consolidation
Officer is liable to be set aside as the
aforesaid order is passed on the basis of
fraudulent
documents.
However,
the
mother of the petitioners was living with
the opposite parties and she could not know
about the aforesaid order being illiterate
lady, therefore, she could not file any
appeal challenging the aforesaid order
dated 26.03.1981. However, the mother of
1530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioners could know about the order
dated 26.03.1981 in the month of May,
2005 when the behaviour of the private
opposite parties hereto became rude against
her and they stated her not to live with
them, therefore, she filed an appeal under
Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act on 24.05.2005 before the
Appellate Authority i.e. the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation along with an
application under Section 5 of Limitation
Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has further stated that the mother of the
petitioners was said to be dead by the
private opposite parties in the year 1981 but
she being alive person has herself filed an
appeal on 24.05.2005. The Appellate
Authority has heard the application of
Section 5 of Limitation Act being filed by
the mother of the petitioners and decided
the same vide order dated 04.07.2016
rejecting that application on the ground of
inordinate delay of 24 years. The Appellate
Authority has indicated in his order that the
appellant, Smt. Kalawati, was getting old
age pension and she was a Ration Card
holder, therefore, she may not say that she
is an illiterate persona and she may not
aware about the law. The Appellate
Authority has further stated that inordinate
delay of 24 years has not been explained
properly in the application filed under
Section 5 of Limitation Act.

7. I have perused that application filed
under Section 5 of Limitation Act and find
that the said application is not happily
worded. However, the fact remains that the
impugned order dated 26.03.1981 was
passed on the application wherein the
mother of the present petitioners was
declared as a dead person. Feeling
aggrieved from the orders dated 26.03.1981
and 04.07.1916 the petitioners filed a
revision before the Revisional Authority
i.e. the Deputy Director of Consolidation
under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act. The Revisional Authority
has also rejected the revision of the
petitioners vide order dated 27.03.2023 on
the ground that there is no infirmity or
illegality in the order dated 04.07.2016
passed by the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation i.e. the Appellate Authority
inasmuch as the unexplained delay of 24
years would vitiate the claim of the
revisionists/petitioners hereto.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has stated that since the very foundation set
up by the private opposite parties before the
Consolidation Officer is based on the
wrong fact and one fraudulent document,
therefore, the delay in challenging such
order would be meaningless inasmuch as
the factum of fraud would vitiate the entire
proceedings and the order being passed by
the Consolidation Officer.

9. Attention of this Court has been
drawn by the learned counsel for the
petitioners towards the judgment of this
Court rendered in the case in re: Rikhdev
and
another
vs.
Additional
District
Magistrate (Finance), Azamgarh and
others reported in [2012 (30) LCD 712]
referring para-36, which reads as under:-

"36. In Indian Bank v. Satyam
Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550
: JT 1996 (7) SC 135, referring to Lazarus
Estates and Smith v. East Elloe Rural
District Council, 1956 AC 336 : (1956) 1
All ER 855 : (1956) 2 WLR 888, the Apex
Court stated:

"22. The judiciary in India also
possesses inherent power, specially under
5 All. Smt. Savitri Devi & Anr. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi & Ors.
1531
Section 151 C.P.C., to recall its judgment
or order if it is obtained by Fraud on
Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the
suit or proceedings, the Court may direct
the affected party to file a separate suit for
setting aside the Decree obtained by fraud.
Inherent powers are powers which are
resident in all courts, especially of superior
jurisdiction. These powers spring not from
legislation but from the nature and the
Constitution of the Tribunals or Courts
themselves so as to enable them to maintain
their dignity, secure obedience to its
process and rules, protect its officers from
indignity and wrong and to punish
unseemly
behaviour.
This
power
is
necessary for the orderly administration of
the Court's business."

10. On the basis of the aforesaid
judgment of the Apex Court learned
counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the order passed by the Consolidation
Officer dated 26.03.1981 is liable to be
quashed.

11. He has further submitted that the
aforesaid ground relating to the fraud
should have been considered by the
Appellate Authority and the Revisional
Authority but both the authorities have
dismissed the appeal and the revision only
on the ground of inordinate delay of 24
years.

12. Per contra, Sri Umesh Chandra
Pandey, learned counsel for the private
opposite parties has stated that since the
delay of 24 years has not been explained by
the petitioners while filing the appeal,
therefore, the impugned orders being
passed by the Appellate Authority and the
Revisional Authority are perfectly just and
proper. He has also drawn attention of this
Court towards para-39 of the judgment of
this Court rendered in re: Roop Narain and
others
vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and others reported in [2020
(38) LCD 2577]. Para-39 of the judgment
reads as under:-

"39. In addition, it may be
acknowledged that the jurisdiction of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide
both questions of fact and law is very wide.
It was hedged in with some limitations
prior to the amendment made to Section 48
of the Act, introduced vide U.P. Act no.3 of
2002, in the form of Explanation (3). Under
the unamended law also, their Lordships of
the Supreme Court approved the principle
that where the findings are perverse or
not supported by evidence, it would be
the duty of the Deputy Director to
examine the entire case. This was held in
Sheo Nand (supra), to which allusion
has been made above. Now under the
amended provisions of Section 48, very
wide powers have been conferred on the
Deputy Director to decide all questions
of fact and law recorded by any
subordinate Authority. He has also been
conferred with the power to appreciate
any oral or documentary evidence.
Indeed, the enlarged powers under
Section 48, conferred on the Deputy
Director, vide U.P. Act no.3 of 2002,
retrospectively
w.e.f.
November
10,
1980, make for a most non-conventional
kind of revisional jurisdiction. But, the
statute ordains it to be so. It is the duty
of this Court to give full effect to the
amended provisions of Section 48, read
with Explanation (3). The amended
provisions of Section 48 (as amended
vide U.P. Act no.3 of 2002) read:

"In Section 48 of the principal
Act, after explanation (2) the following
explanation shall be inserted, namely:--
1532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Explanation
(3).-The
power
under
this
section
to
examine
the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
order includes the power to examine any
finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by
any
subordinate
authority,
and
also
includes the power to re-appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence."."

13. Sri Pandey has further submitted
that even if the petitioners are aggrieved
from the Will-Deed instead of filing this
writ petition, they should have filed a suit
challenging the Will-Deed and if the WillDeed is declared void, the petitioners may
seek their claim on the property in question
on the basis of order being passed by the
Civil Court, but at this stage the writ
petition would not be maintainable.

14. In reply to the aforesaid
contention,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has stated that undisputedly the
mother of the petitioners was a widow of
the recorded tenure holder and she was
alive when the application was filed by the
private opposite parties then she should
have been impleaded as opposite party in a
case filed by the private opposite parties
but the private opposite parties deliberately
have not impleaded the mother of the
petitioner (Smt. Kalawati) as opposite party
and she could not know about the
publication for the reason that she was
living with the private opposite parties after
the death of her husband (Sri Bhagauti) and
admittedly the private opposite parties were
looking after her. In support of the
aforesaid arguments, he has referred the
judgment of Full Bench of this Court
delivered in the case in re: Ram Padarath
and others vs. IInd Additional District
Judge,
Sultanpur
and
others;
Writ
Petition No.1732 of 1982 connected with
Writ Petition Nos.1126 & 1129 of 1983:
6351 of 1982 and others, decided on 26th
September, 1988 referring para-40 thereof,
which reads as under:-

"40. We are of the view that the
case of Indra Dev v. Smt. Ram Piari, 1982
ALJ 1308, has been correctly decided and
the said decision requires no consideration,
while the Division Bench Case, Dr.
Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangaotri, 1981 AWC
469 is regarding the jurisdiction of
consolidation authorities, but so far as it
holds that suit in respect of void documents
will lie in the revenue court it does not lay
down a good law. Suit or action for
cancellation
of
void
document
will
generally lie in the civil court and a party
cannot be deprived of his right getting this
relief permissible under law except when a
declaration of right or status and a tenureholder is necessarily needed in which even
relief for cancellation will be surplusage
and redundant. A recorded tenure-holder
having prima facie title in his favour can
hardly be directed to approach the revenue
court in respect of seeking relief for
cancellation of a void documents which
made him to approach the court of law and
such case he can also claim ancillary relief
even though the same can be granted by the
revenue court."

 Reference answered.

15. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, I find that while
challenging the impugned order dated
26.03.1981 passed by the Consolidation
Officer the mother of the petitioners (Smt.
Kalawati) has not properly explained the
reasons of delay in filing appeal. However,
she has only stated that she being an
illiterate lady could not know about the
order dated 26.03.1981. However, she has
5 All. Smt. Savitri Devi & Anr. Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi & Ors.
1533
stated in the appeal as well as in the
revision that after the death of her husband
(Sri Bhagauti), who was the original
tenure-holder, she was living with the
family members of her husband, who are
private opposite parties hereto, and they
were looking after her property, therefore,
she could not know the things that the
family members of her late husband, the
private opposite parties hereto, were having
any malafide intention in their mind to
usurp the property of her late husband on
the basis of one Will-Deed whereas to the
best of her knowledge there was no such
Will-Deed. She has also stated in the
appeal as well as in the revision that despite
the fact that she was alive when the
impugned order dated 26.03.1981 was
passed, even when the application dated
06.01.1981 was preferred by the private
opposite parties but she has been declared
dead. She has also stated in her appeal and
the revision that she had not been afforded
an opportunity of hearing before the
Consolidation
Officer.
However,
the
finding on that point has been returned by
the
Consolidation
Officer
that
the
publication was issued before passing the
order impugned dated 26.03.1981, but no
one has filed objection thereon.

16. Since the specific ground was
taken by the mother of the petitioners that
the
application
dated
06.01.1981
(Annexure No.5) was not proper wherein
she
was
declared
as
dead
person,
therefore, atleast an opportunity should
have been given to the widow of the
original tenure-holder to put up her case.
So far as the fact that the marginal
witnesses of the Will-Deed appeared
before the Consolidation Officer and have
proved the factum of Will-Deed is
concerned, at least one opportunity should
have been given to her so that she could
adduce
the
evidence
apprising
the
authority that there was no Will-Deed of
her late husband in favour of the private
opposite parties.

17. Notably, this is a case where the
mutation has been sought on the basis of
one Will-Deed which is not registered one
as no recital to this effect has been given
from either side and the widow of the
original tenure holder was deliberately not
made necessary party so the lacuna may
not be filled through the publication.

18. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, I find that all those aforesaid
facts should have been considered by the
Revisional Authority and this is not a case
wherein the revision should have been
decided only on the ground that there was
inordinate delay in assailing the impugned
order dated 26.03.1981 passed by the
Consolidation
Officer.Therefore,
the
Revisional Authority should have passed a
fresh order considering the aforesaid facts
and grounds so taken by the petitioners
before the Revisional Authority.

19. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Revisional
Authority i.e. the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Gonda is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the
Revisional Authority to pass a fresh order,
strictly in accordance with law by
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned by considering the facts
and grounds so taken by the petitioners in
the revision. Such order shall be passed
within a period of six months from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order.

20. The instant writ petition is,
therefore, partly allowed.
1534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1534
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 20823 of 2022

Usha Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ms. Archana Singh, Sri Pranesh Dutt
Tripathi
Civil Law - Service Matter - Recruitment -
Assistant
Teachers
Recruitment
Examination, 2019 - In the online form,
petitioners mentioned BTC in place of BTC
through
distance
education
mode.
Candidature was rejected on the ground
that BTC by distance education mode had
not
been
disclosed
in
the
online
application form. Issue: Whether the nondisclosure by the petitioners of their
eligibility qualification BTC (by distance
education) would dis-entitle them to the
allotment of the district. Held: Candidates
were required to possess BTC irrespective
of where and by what mode they had
obtained the training qualification. Court
found no substance in the submission of
the respondents that the petitioners did
not disclose in their online application
form that they were Shiksha Mitras having
obtained the BTC qualification by distance
education mode. On account of the said
non-disclosure,
the
software
did
not
identify them as Shiksha Mitras and,
consequently,
did
not
extend
the
weightage admissible to them. In the
opinion of the Court, it was due to faulty
programming, and since the petitioners
had satisfied the eligibility criteria, they
could not be denied the appointment. The
respondents were directed to include the
names of the petitioners in the list of
successful candidates for allotment of the
districts. (Paras 10, 12, 13)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Rekshar Khan Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ
Petition No.4677 of 2020, dated 08.07.2020
2. Ram Manohar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Special
Appeal
No.834
of
2013,
dated
30.05.2013
3. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and 60 others Vs
St. of U.P. & ors., Writ Petition No.4070 of 2020,
dated 30.05.2020
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Praveen
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, Sri P. D. Tripathi, learned
counsel,
who has
appeared
for
the
Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and learned
Standing Counsel for the State Respondent
Nos.1 & 2.

2. The writ petitioners, who are
working as Shiksha Mitra have approached
this Court seeking quashing of the orders
dated
05.11.2020
and
10.11.2020
(Annexure No.7 & 8 to the writ petition)
respectively. A further prayer in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondents
to permit the petitioners to correct the
information in their applications forms and
the respondents be directed to grant
weightage of 25 marks of Shiksha Mitra
and consider the candidature for the
petitioners for the post of Assistant
Teachers.