# State of U.P. & Anr v. Mohit Kumar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 512
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-13
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 233 of 2021
- **Bench:** Munishwar Nath Bhandari, A.C.J. Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-mohit-kumar-ors-47440
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Ganna Paryaveshak
(Group III) Service Rules, 2015 - Rule 9 -
Post of Cane Supervisor - Appointment -
Qualification - CCC Certificate issued by
DOEACC Society - As per Rule 9, one
should be in possession of Bachelor's
degree in Agriculture Science apart from
CCC Certificate of DOEACC Society -
Petitioner is not in possession of CCC
Certificate in computer operation - It's
effect - Held, the petitioner is not eligible
for appointment on the post of Cane
Supervisor
-
Qualification
is
to
be
determined by the employer for any post
and it is not for the Courts to consider and
assess the possession of qualification -
Learned Single Judge placed reliance on
the administrative orders ignoring the
statutory provisions. (Para 11, 20 and 24)
B. Interpretation of Statute - Statute and
Administrative
order
-
Conflict
-
Overriding effect - An administrative
order
can
supplement
the
statutory
provisions but cannot supplanted it - It
was
not
in
the
domain
of
the
administration to issue order dehors the
statutory provisions. (Para 17)
Appeal allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)09ILR A512
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MUNISHWAR NATH
BHANDARI, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 233 of 2021
&
Special Appeal Defective No. 234 of 2021

State of U.P. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Mohit Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Gaurav Mehrotra, Badrish Kumar Tripathi

A. Service Law - UP Ganna Paryaveshak
(Group III) Service Rules, 2015 - Rule 9 -
Post of Cane Supervisor - Appointment -
Qualification - CCC Certificate issued by
DOEACC Society - As per Rule 9, one
should be in possession of Bachelor's
degree in Agriculture Science apart from
CCC Certificate of DOEACC Society -
Petitioner is not in possession of CCC
Certificate in computer operation - It's
effect - Held, the petitioner is not eligible
for appointment on the post of Cane
Supervisor
-
Qualification
is
to
be
determined by the employer for any post
and it is not for the Courts to consider and
assess the possession of qualification -
Learned Single Judge placed reliance on
the administrative orders ignoring the
statutory provisions. (Para 11, 20 and 24)
B. Interpretation of Statute - Statute and
Administrative
order
-
Conflict
-
Overriding effect - An administrative
order
can
supplement
the
statutory
provisions but cannot supplanted it - It
was
not
in
the
domain
of
the
administration to issue order dehors the
statutory provisions. (Para 17)
Appeal allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Dhananjay Malik & ors. Vs St. of Uttaranchal
& ors., (2008) 4 SCC 171
2. U.O.I. Vs K.P. Joseph & ors., (1973) 1 SCC
194
3. U.O.I. & anr. Vs Ashok Aggarwal; (2013) 16
SCC 147
4. Govt. of A.P. & ors. Vs P. Laxmi Devi; (2008)
4 SCC 720
5. Zahoor Ahmad Rather & ors.Vs Sheikh
Imtiyaz & ors., (2019) 2
SCC 404
6. Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs
Sandeep Shriram Warade; (2019) 6 SCC 362
7. P.N.B. Vs Amit Kumar Das; 2020 SCC Online
SC 897

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. The aforesaid two appeals are
against the common judgment dated
10.03.2021, which is impugned in both the
appeals, thus, the appeals are being decided
by a common judgment.

2. There is a delay in filing of the
present special appeals.

Reasons
mentioned
in
the
affidavit filed along with application for
condonation of delay are found to be
satisfactory, hence, the delay in filing the
special appeals is condoned and the appeal
are heard on merit.

3. The private respondents in the
present appeals had preferred writ petitions
for non consideration of their candidature
9 All State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Mohit Kumar & Ors.
513
in the interview for appointment on the post
of Cane Supervisor in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 06.10.2016 for the
reason that they were not in possession of
certificate
of
Course
on
Computer
Concepts (hereinafter referred to as, the
Certificate
of
CCC)
issued
by
the
DOEACC Society.

4. The learned counsel for the private
respondents/petitioners
in
the
present
appeals has submitted that they were in
possession of degrees in which, computer
course was one of the subjects, thus, they
were eligible for the appointment on the
post of Cane Supervisor in view of the
Government Order dated 06.05.2016 and
23.09.2016, as clarified subsequently by
the order dated 05.07.2018.

5. In supoort of the submissions that
these Government orders or the Executive
orders are applicable upon the private
respondents/petitioners, they relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Dhananjay Malik and others Vs.
State of Uttaranchal and others reported in
(2008) 4 SCC 171 and in the case of Union
of India Vs. K.P. Joseph and others
reported in 1973 1 SCC 194.

6. The aforesaid judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court are on the issue of
filling up the gaps. In this case, there is no
gap in Rule 9 (ii) of Rules, 2015 which is
required to be filled up by any government
order or instructions, thus, the judgment
relied are not applicable in this case.

7. The learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petitions in reference to the
Government Orders, which have relaxed
the qualifications otherwise provided under
the
Statutory
provisions
taking
into
consideration that the intention of the
legislature/employer
in
providing
requirement of the certificate of CCC for
the said post is to recruit the candidates
suitable to work efficiently in the changing
work environment of office. In the
judgment
impugned,
it
has
been
specifically been mentioned that the private
respondents did not possess the certificate
of CCC but they were in possession of
equivalent qualification issued by other
recognized institutions which makes them
suitable to fulfill the requirement of
employer for the post in question.

8. On the other hand, the learned
counsel appearing for the State-appellant
has submitted that as per the Rule 9 of the
Uttar Pradesh Ganna Paryaveshak (Group
III)
Service
Rules,
2015
(Second
Amendment) (hereinafter referred to as the
Rules, 2015), the certificate of CCC
awarded by the DOEACC Society is the
academic qualification for the purpose of
consideration for appointment on the post
of Cane Supervisor. For convenience, the
Rule 9 of the Rules of 2015 is being quoted
hereunder:-

" Substitution of Rule 9.

COLU
MN-1

Existin
g Rules

COLUMN-2

Rule as
hereby
substituted
Academic
Qualificati
on
9.
A
candida
te
for
direct
recruit
ment to
a
post
in
the
service
Acade
mic
Qualif
icatio
n
9.
A
candidate
for
direct
recruitment
to a post in
the
service
must possess
the following
qualification
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) must
have
passed
the
Interme
diate
(Agricul
ture)
Examin
ation
from the
Board
of High
School
and
Interme
diate
Educati
on,
Uttar
pradesh
or
an
examin
ation
recogni
zed
by
the
Govern
ment as
equival
ent
thereto,

OR

(ii) (a)
must
have
passed
the
High
School
Examin
ation
:

(i)
Bachelor's
degree
in
Agriculture
Science from
a University
established
by
law
in
India or a
qualification
recognized
by
the
Government
as
equivalent
thereto.

(ii)
CCC
Certificate
in Computer
operation
awarded by
the
DOEACC
Society.
from the
Board
of High
School
and
Interme
diate
Educati
on,
Uttar
Pradesh
or
an
examin
ation
recogni
zed
by
the
Govern
ment as
equival
ent
thereto;

(b) must
possess
two
years
diploma
in
Agricult
ure
from a
recogni
zed
instituti
on.

9. As per the substituted qualification,
one was required to be in possession of
Bachelor's degree in Agriculture Science
apart from CCC Certificate in computer
operation of DOEACC Society. The
petitioners/ private respondents were not in
possession of CCC Certificate. The prayer
9 All State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Mohit Kumar & Ors.
515
is accordingly to set aside the judgement of
learned Single Judge.

10. Learned counsel for the private
respondents submits that petitioners/private
respondents were in possession of the
Bachelor's degree in Agricultural Science,
where the Computer was one of the subject.
Thus as per Government Order, they were
eligible for appointment on the post of
Cane Supervisor. The prayer is accordingly
to upheld the judgement of learned Single
Judge.

11. We have considered the rival
submissions of the parties and perused the
records.

12. It is not in dispute that the
post in question is governed by the Uttar
Pradesh Ganna Paryaveshak (Group III)
Service Rules, 2015 (Second Amendment).
The qualification provided therein is as
under :

9.
A
candidate
for
direct
recruitment to a post in the service must
possess the following qualification:

(i)
Bachelor's
degree
in
Agriculture Science from a University
established
by
law
in
India
or
a
qualification
recognized
by
the
Government as equivalent thereto.

(ii) CCC Certificate in Computer
operation awarded by the DOEACC
Society.

As per Rule 9, one should be in
possession
of
Bachelor's
degree
in
Agriculture
Science
apart
from
CCC
Certificate of DOEACC Society. It has not
been disputed that petitioner is not in
possession of CCC Certificate in computer
operation.
Thus
as
per
the
statutory
provisions, he is not eligible for appointment
on the post of Cane Supervisor. The
Government issued letter dated 6.5.2016 to
relax the qualification of CCC Certificate.
The part of the letter dated 6.3.2016 is also
quoted hereunder for ready reference:

**dfu"B lgk;d ,oa vk'kqfyfid ds inks
ij p;u gsrq Mh-vks-bZ-,-lh-lh- 1⁄4Mks;d1⁄2 lkslkbZVh
}kjk iznRr lh-lh-lh- izek.k&i= dh led{krk ds
lEcU/k eas 'kklu }kjk fuEuor~ fu.kZ; fy;k x;k
gS%&

1⁄411⁄2 ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj izns'k
ds lkFk&lkFk dsUnz vFkok fdlh jkT; ljdkj }kjk
LFkkfir fdlh laLFkk@f'k{kk] cksMZ@ifj"kn }kjk
lapkfyr gkbZLdwy vFkok baVjehfM,V ijh{kk es
i`Fkd fo"k; ds :i es dEI;wVj lkbUl fo"k; dks
fy;k x;k gksA

1⁄421⁄2 ;fn fdlh vH;FkhZ }kjk dEI;wVj
lkUbl es fMIyksek vFkok fMxzh izkIr dh xbZ gks rks
og Hkh dfUk"B lgk;d@vk'kqfyfid ds inksa ij HkrhZ
gsrq ik= gksxkA "

12. The another letter was issued on
23.9.2016 and relevant part of it, is also
quoted herein below:

**mijksDr
fo"k;d
lela[;d
'kklukns'k fnukad 03@06 ebZ 2016 dk d`i;k
lanHkZ xzg.k djs] ftlds ek/;e ls dfu"B lgk;d
,oa vk'kqfyfid ds inks ij p;u gsrq Mh-vks-bZ-,-
lh-lh- 1⁄4Mks;d1⁄2 lkslkbZVh }kjk iznRr lh-lh-lh-
izek.k&i= dh led{krk ds lanHkZ es 'kklu }kjk
fuEuor~ fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk

1⁄411⁄2 ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn mRrj izns'k
ds lkFk&lkFk dsUnz vFkok fdlh jkT; ljdkj
}kjk LFkkfir fdlh laLFkk@f'k{kk] cksMZ@ifj"kn
}kjk lapkfyr gkbZ Ldwy vFkok baVjehfM,V
ijh{kk es i`Fkd fo"k; ds :i es dEI;wVj lkbUl
fo"k; dks fy;k x;k gksA

1⁄421⁄2 ;fn fdlh vH;FkhZ }kjk dEI;wVj
lkUbl es fMIyksek vFkok fMxzh izkIr dh xbZ gks
rks og Hkh dfUk"B lgk;d@vk'kqfyfid ds inksa
ij HkrhZ gsrq ik= gksxkA **

13. The Government Order dated
05.07.2018 is also quoted hereunder:
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

fo"k;&
Mh-vks-bZ-,-lh-lh-1⁄4Mks;d1⁄2
lkslkbVh }kjk iznRr lh-lh-lh- izek.k&i= dh
led{krk ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

dfum lgk;d] vk.kqfyfid ,oa ,slh
leLr jkT;k/khu yksd lsokvksa vkSj inksa ftu ij
p;u gsrq Mh-vks-bZ-,-lh-lh-1⁄4Mks;d1⁄2 lkslkbZVh
1⁄4ifjofrZr uke NIELIT-National Institute of
Electronics And Information Technology1⁄2
}kjk iznRr lh-lh-lh- izek.k&i= visf{kr gS] dh
led{krk ds lEcU/k esa lela[;d 'kklukns'k
fnukad 03@06 ebZ] 2016 ,oa 23 flrEcj] 2016
fuxZr fd;s x;s gSaA

2- led{krk ds lEcU/k esa gks jgh
O;kogkfjd dfBukbZ;ksa ds n`f"Vxr lh-lh-lh- izek.k
i= ,oa mldh leds{k vgZrk dks vkSj Li"V djus
gsrq lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr 'kklu }kjk ;g fu.kZ;
fy;k x;k gS fd dEI;wVj esa mPPk ;ksX;rk /kkjh
;Fkk&dEI;wVj esa fMIyksek] fMxzh] ih-th-Mh-lh-,-]
ch-lh-,-] ,e-lh-,- rFkk xsztq,s'ku vFkok mPp
fMxzh 1⁄4ch-,-] ch-,l-lh-] ch-Vsd- ,e-,l-lh] ,e-ch-
,-1⁄2 esa dEI;wVj ,oa fo"k; ds :i vFkok ,d
lsesLVj esa dEI;wVj dkslZ /kkfjr djus okys
vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Hkh iz'uxr inksa ds p;u gsrq vgZ
ekuk tk;sxkA

3- bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk
funs'k gqvk gS fd 'kklu }kjk fy, x, mDr
fu.kZ; dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A

14. At this stage it is necessary to
observe that the administrative order
referred
to
above
i.e.
3/6.5.2016,
23.9.2016 and 05.07.2018 cannot be read
in conflict to the Rule 9 (ii) of Rules,
2015. The Rule , 2015, as amended
require CCC Certificate of computer
science. It could not have been nullified
by an administrative order, unles so
provided in the Rules itself as in the case
of Rule 9 (i) of Rules, 2015.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
catena of judgments has held that the
statutory provisions cannot be supplanted
by issuance of Administrative Orders,
Office Memorandums etc. The relevant
extract of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and Another Vs. Ashok Aggarwal
reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147 is being
quoted hereunder:-

" 59. The law laid down above
has consistently been followed and it is a
settled proposition of law that an
authority
cannot
issue
orders/office
memorandum/executive instructions in
contravention of the statutory rules.
However, instructions can be issued only
to supplement the statutory rules but not
to supplant it. Such instructions should be
subservient to the statutory provisions. (
Vide
Union
of
India
Vs.
Majji
Jangamayya, P.D. Aggarwal V. State of
UP, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of
India, C. Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka
Lokayukta and Joint Action Committee of
Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India V. D.G. of
Civil Aviation. )

60. Similarly, a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Naga People's
Movement of Human rights V. Union of
India, held that the executive instructions
have binding force provided the same
have been issued to fill up the gap
between the statutory provisions and are
not inconsistent with the said provisions."

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Government of Andhra Pradesh
and others Vs. P. Laxmi Devi reported in
(2008) 4 SCC 720 has held as under:- .

" 34. In India the grundnorm is
the Indian Constitution, and the hierarchy
is as follows:-

i) The Constitution of India;

ii) Statutory law, which may be
either law made by Parliament or by the
State Legislature;
9 All State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Mohit Kumar & Ors.
517

iii) Delegated legislation, which
may be in the form of rules made under the
statute, regulations made under the statute,
etc;

iv) Purely executive orders not
made under any statute.

35. If a law (norm) in a higher
layer in the above hierarchy clashes with a
law in a lower layer, the former will
prevail. Hence a constitutional provision
will prevail over all other laws, whether in
a statute or in delegated legislation or in
an executive order. The Constitution is the
highest law of the land, and no law which
is in conflict with it can survive. Since the
law made by the legislature is in the second
layer of the hierarchy, obviously it will be
invalid if it is in conflict with a provision in
the Constitution (except the directive
principles which, by Article 37, have been
expressly made non-enforceable. "

17. It is settled law that an
administrative order can supplement the
statutory provisions but cannot supplanted
it. The administrative order referred to
above and quoted has supplanted the
statutory provisions. It was not in the
domain of the administration to issue order
dehors the statutory provisions. Thus even
the administrative order could not have
been read to the benefit of candidate going
dehors the Rules.

18. A similar controversy has been
decided by this Court in Special Appeal
Defective No. 440 of 2021 by the judgment
dated 07.07.2021 and held that the statutory
provisions cannot be superseded by the
administrative orders.

19. The learned counsel for the
private respondents-petitioners failed to
dispute that a similar controversy has
already been attained finality by the
judgment dated 07.07.2021 passed in
Special Appeal (Defective ) No. 440 of
2021.

20. The qualification is to be
determined by the employer for any post
and it is not for the Courts to consider and
assess the possession of qualification.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others
Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz and others reported in
(2019) 2 SCC 404 has held as under:-

".....the
prescription
of
qualifications for a post is a matter of
recruitment policy. The State as the
employer is entitled to prescribe the
qualifications as a condition of eligibility.
It is no part of the role or function of
judicial review to expand upon the ambit of
the prescribed qualifications. Similarly,
equivalence of a qualification is not a
matter which can be determined in exercise
of the power of judicial review. Whether a
particular qualification should or should
not be regarded as equivalent is a matter
for the State, as the recruiting authority, to
determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
(2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S)
664] turned on a specific statutory rule
under which the holding of a higher
qualification
could
presuppose
the
acquisition of a lower qualification. The
absence of such a rule in the present case
makes a crucial difference to the ultimate
outcome. In this view of the matter, the
Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor
Ahmad Rattler, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017,
decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High
Court was justified in reversing the
judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of
J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the
learned Single Judge and in coming to the
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conclusion that the appellants did not meet
the prescribed qualifications. We find no
error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v.
Zahoor other IPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017,
decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the
Division Bench.

22. A similar note of restraint was
entered in Maharashtra Public Service
Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade
[2019 6 SCC 362]. The para no. 9 is being
reproduced
hereunder
of
the
said
judgment:-

"9.The essential qualifications for
appointment to a post are for the employer to
decide.
The
employer
may
prescribe
additional
or
desirable
qualifications,
including any grant of preference. It is the
employer who is best suited to decide the
requirements a candidate must possess
according to the needs of the employer and
the nature of work. The court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility, much less
can it delve into the issue with regard to
desirable qualifications being on a par with
the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of
equivalence will also fall outside the domain
of judicial review. If the language of the
advertisement and the rules are clear, the
court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If
there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or
it is contrary to any rules or law the matter
has to go back to the appointing authority
after appropriate orders, to proceed in
accordance with law. In no case can the
court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the
chair of the appointing authority to decide
what is best for the employer and interpret
the conditions of the advertisement contrary
to the plain language of the same."

23. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Punjab National Bank
Vs. Amit Kumar Das reported in 2020
SCC Online SC 897 observed as under:-

" 21. Thus, as held by this
Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is for
the employer to determine and decide
the relevancy and suitability of the
qualifications for any post and it is not
for the Courts to consider and assess. A
greater latitude is permitted by the
Courts for the employer to prescribed
qualifications for any post. There is a
rationale behind it. Qualifications are
prescribed keeping in view the need and
interest of an Institution or an industry
or an establishment as the case may be.
The Courts are not fit instruments to
assess expediency or advisability or
utility
of
such
prescription
of
qualifications....."

24. Learned Single Judge, however,
placed reliance on the administrative
orders ignoring the statutory provisions.
The petitioners / private respondents
were not having CCC Crtificate from
DoEACC Society as provided under
Rule 9 (ii) of Rules, 2015 without any
exception or reservation. It does not
suffice the condition given even in the
administrative order and otherwise it
could not have been read in conflict with
the statutory provisions. Accordingly,
we find substance in the appeal and
accordingly the judgement of learned
Single Judge dated 10.03.2021, is set
aside.

25. Accordingly, the appeals are
allowed.

The judgment is being pronounced
under Chapter VII 1 (2) of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952.
----------
9 All Navneet Kumar Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
519
(2021)09ILR A519
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Service Bench No. 1704 of 2020

Navneet Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Apoorva Tewari, Aditya Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Neerav Chitravanshi, Raj Kumar
Singh

A. Service Law - Administrative Tribunal
Act - Sections 6(3) &8(2) - Administrative
Tribunals (Procedure for Appointment of
Members), Rules 2011 - R. 11 - Central
Administrative Tribunal - Post of Judicial
member - Retirement - Extension of term
- Selection Committee recommended for
extension of term of appointment of the
petitioner with the concurrence of the
Chief
Justice
of
India
-
However,
Department of Personnel and training
(DoPT) refused extension, which was
approved by the Appointments Committee
of the Cabinet (ACC) relying upon letter
dated 12.04.2017, though this letter has
already been quashed by the High Court
vide order dated 08.05.2019 - Validity -
Held, once the decision contained in the
letter/order
dated
12.04.2017
was
quashed by this Court, the plea based on
the decision of the Selection Committee
for carrying forward the vacancies to the
year
2017
is
not
available
to
the
respondents - High court found the Office
Memorandum dated 23.08.2019 contrary
to
the
Rules
and
Judgment
dated
08.05.2019. (Para 25 and 32)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. R. S. Mittal Vs U.O.I. [1995 Supp (2) SCC
230]
2. U.O.I. & ors.Vs Kali Dass Batish; [2006 (1)
SCC 779]
3. St. of Bihar Vs Dr. Braj Kumar Mishra & ors.
1999 (9) SCC 546
4. Comptroller &Auditor General of India, Gian
Prakash, New Delhi & anr. Vs K. S. Jagannathan
& anr.; 1986 (2) SCC 679
5. Badri Nath Vs St. of T.N. & ors. (2000) 8 SCC
395
6. Major General H. M. Singh, VS U.O.I. & anr.
(2014) 3 SCC 670
7. Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs Jagdishbhai
M. Kamalia & ors. (2004) 2 SCC 65
8. Mohinder Singh Gill & anr. Vs The Chief
Election Commissioner & ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. These proceedings under Article 226 of
the constitution of India have been instituted
assailing the decision of the Competent
Authority of the Central Government, whereby
the proposal of Department of Personnel and
Training (hereinafter referred to as "DoPT") for
denial of extension of term of appointment of
the petitioner as Judicial Member in Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to
as "CAT") has been approved. This decision
has been taken in purported compliance of the
judgment and order dated 08.05.2019 passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No.6640 (S/B) of
2017.

2. Challenge herein has also been
made
to
the
communication
dated