# Sushil Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. &

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 844
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-07-15
- **Case number:** Judge by which Civil Misc.Writ Petition Nos. 29050 of 2006 and 29029 of 2004
- **Bench:** R.K. Agrawal, Abhinava Upadhya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sushil-kumar-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-41699
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art 23-termination
of Compassionate Appointment-obtained
by concealing true facts-availing benefit
of presumed/civil death under Section
108 Evidence Act-Appointment cancelled
after ten years followed by show cause
notice
and
reply
considered-after
scrutiny
of
original
records-petition
challenging
termination
order-held,
order of Single Judge does not call for
interference-however the part of order
directing recovery of salary modified
keeping in view the work-but authorities
permitted to recover amount paid to him
as service benefits

Held Para 23

Be that as it may, we can also not shut
our eyes to the fact that the salary and
other service benefits extended to the
appellant
was
result
of
a
fraud
committed by him as held by the learned
Single
Judge.
Therefore,
being
in
respectful
agreement
with
the
judgement of the Hon'ble Judge, but
keeping in view the provisions of Article
23 of the Constitution of India, we are of
the view that it would meet the ends of
justice if the order of the learned Single
Judge is modified to the extent that
instead of recovering entire salary paid
to the appellant, it is directed that the
authorities concerned will be entitled to
recover all the amount paid to the
appellant from the public exchequer
during the period that he was in service
except the minimum of the pay scale
admissible to the post held by the
appellant. It is further directed that the
authorities are also at liberty to proceed
against the appellant or any other
person or employee found to have been
involved in the commission of the
aforesaid fraud in any manner as may be
permissible in law.
Case Law Discussed:
AIR 1971 Kerela 85; 1998 (7) SCC 569; 1969
(3) SCC 28; 2005 (11) SCC 525; AIR 1978 SC
851; 2004 (2) SCC 105; 1993 (6) SC 331

## Text

844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

2003 and saved under Section 3(2) of the
2009 Act on Group ''C' and Group ''D' posts.

93. Orders accordingly.

94. Parties shall bear their own costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE ABHINAVA UPADHYA, J.

Special Appeal No - 1430 of 2007

Sushil Kumar Pandey

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. and Others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jitendra Bahadur Singh
Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art 23-termination
of Compassionate Appointment-obtained
by concealing true facts-availing benefit
of presumed/civil death under Section
108 Evidence Act-Appointment cancelled
after ten years followed by show cause
notice
and
reply
considered-after
scrutiny
of
original
records-petition
challenging
termination
order-held,
order of Single Judge does not call for
interference-however the part of order
directing recovery of salary modified
keeping in view the work-but authorities
permitted to recover amount paid to him
as service benefits

Held Para 23

Be that as it may, we can also not shut
our eyes to the fact that the salary and
other service benefits extended to the
appellant
was
result
of
a
fraud
committed by him as held by the learned
Single
Judge.
Therefore,
being
in
respectful
agreement
with
the
judgement of the Hon'ble Judge, but
keeping in view the provisions of Article
23 of the Constitution of India, we are of
the view that it would meet the ends of
justice if the order of the learned Single
Judge is modified to the extent that
instead of recovering entire salary paid
to the appellant, it is directed that the
authorities concerned will be entitled to
recover all the amount paid to the
appellant from the public exchequer
during the period that he was in service
except the minimum of the pay scale
admissible to the post held by the
appellant. It is further directed that the
authorities are also at liberty to proceed
against the appellant or any other
person or employee found to have been
involved in the commission of the
aforesaid fraud in any manner as may be
permissible in law.
Case Law Discussed:
AIR 1971 Kerela 85; 1998 (7) SCC 569; 1969
(3) SCC 28; 2005 (11) SCC 525; AIR 1978 SC
851; 2004 (2) SCC 105; 1993 (6) SC 331

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.)

1. Special Appeal No. 1470 of 2007(
Sushil Kumar Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. &
Others) and Special Appeal No. 1557 of
2007( Smt. Saroja Pandey Vs. The State Of
U.P. & Others) which are before us for
consideration, have been filed challenging
the common judgment of the learned Single
Judge by which Civil Misc.Writ Petition
Nos. 29050 of 2006 and 29029 of 2004
were decided together and both the writ
petitions filed by the appellants were
dismissed.

2. The appellants are son and mother
respectively.
2 All] Sushil Kumar Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
845

3. The brief facts giving rise to these
appeals are that the appellant of Special
Appeal No. 1470 of 2007 Sushil Kumar
Pandey was appointed on compassionate
ground on assuming the civil death of his
father, namely, Jyoti Bhushan Pandey, who
was working in temporary capacity as
Seechpal in the Irrigation Department and
was reported not to have been seen or heard
of from 1.8.1981. The said appointment was
granted to the appellant Sushil Kumar
Pandey upon his attaining the age of
majority on 30.11.1994. On 22.12.2004 the
appellant was served with a show cause
notice that why his services should not be
terminated as per the terms of appointment
letter on the ground that his father did not
dis appear in the year 1981 as alleged by the
appellant but he himself abandoned his
temporary service which after notice dated
6.4.1983
and
20.4.1983
led
to
his
termination vide order dated 7.6.1983.
Further in response to the said termination
he had sent his representation which was
received in the office on 10.6.1983 stating
therein his inability to perform his official
duties due to physical and domestic reasons.
Therefore, the very appointment of the
appellant on compassionate ground is
invalid. The appellant submitted his reply to
the said notice and thereafter his services
was terminated vide order dated 25.4.2006
which was challenged before the Writ Court
which rejected the claim of the appellant
and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this
special appeal.

4. The appellant of Special Appeal
No. 1557 of 2007 Smt. Saroj Pandey is the
mother of Sushil Kumar Pandey and widow
of Jyoti Bhushan Pandey. She filed the writ
petition on the ground that her claim for
family pension after presumed/civil death of
her husband has been rejected by the
authority concerned on the ground that the
story regarding the legal death of her
husband was untrue and in fact Jyoti
Bhushan Pandey was temporary employee
and was terminated from service and,
therefore, there was no question of grant of
family pension which was in fact claimed
after an inordinate delay, that is to say, after
more than 10 years, i.e., in the year 2004.

5. We have heard Sri Bhupendra Nath
Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the State-authorities and have perused the
ground of appeal mentioned in the memo of
appeal along with the annexures filed
therein.

6. The case set up by both the
appellants is that the father and husband of
the appellants' respectively was a permanent
employee in the Irrigation Department
holding the post of Seenchpal. The
appellants claimed that from 1.8.1981 Jyoti
Bhushan Pandey was neither seen nor heard
of by them and in accordance with Section
108 of the Indian Evidence Act after lapse
of 7 years he was presumed dead and upon
the son attaining the age of majority applied
for appointment on compassionate ground
under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependants
of
U.P.
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 (in short the Rules) and was
given appointment in the year 1994. It
seems that Smt. Saroj Pandey the wife of
Jyoti Bhushan Pandey suddenly woke up
and decided to put forward a claim for
family pension etc. on the ground of the
alleged legal death of her husband Jyoti
Bhushan Pandey.

7. According to the respondents, upon
such an application being made in the year
2004 the records were dug out which
revealed that the story made up by both the
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

appellants was false, inasmuch as, Jyoti
Bhushan Pandey, who was a temporary
employee could not have been presumed to
be legally dead for the purposes of benefits
to his dependents upon the fact that he was
terminated from service after due notice etc.
on 7.6.1983. It is also contended that Jyoti
Bhushan Pandey in fact wrote a letter which
was received in the department on
10.6.1983 wherein he had shown his
inability to continue to work any further on
account of his physical condition and
domestic reasons, therefore, the claim set up
by both the appellants that Jyoti Bhushan
Pandey disappeared and was not seen or
heard of from 1.8.1981 was incorrect. The
father of the appellant as claimed by him
disappeared on 1.8.1981 but FIR regarding
his disappearance was lodged after 12 years
on 14.12.1993 with an insidious design to
illegally
obtain
appointment
upon
furnishing
incorrect
information
and,
therefore, a show cause notice was issued to
him on 22.12.2004 as to why upon
submission
of
false
information
his
appointment be not cancelled as per the
conditions laid down in his letter of
appointment. In response to the aforesaid
show cause notice the appellant Sushil
Kumar Pandey submitted his reply dated
18.1.2005 alleging therein that he has not
concealed
any
information
with
the
department and in fact his father has not
been heard or seen from 1.8.1981 and
specifically
denied
the
factum
of
termination of his father from service as
well as the alleged letter dated 10.6.1983
which has been claimed by the respondents
that they received from the father of the
appellant.

8. Considering the reply dated
18.1.2005 of the appellant the order of
termination dated 25.4.2006 was passed on
the ground that the appointment of the
appellant under the Dying-in-Harness Rules
was illegal since the father of the appellant
Sushil Kumar Pandey did not die in harness
and was in fact terminated from service vide
order
No.
13/83-84
(Rajasva)
dated
7.6.1983 and also on the ground that the
appellant's claim that his father was not seen
or heard of since 1.8.1981 was also proved
false and incorrect because of the letter
dated 10.6.1983 which is said to be
representation against termination of the
father of the appellant Suhshil Kumar
Pandey.

9. The appellants are now claiming
that having been appointed under the
Dying-in-Harness Rules in the year 1994,
suddenly in the year 2004, i.e., after lapse of
more than 10 years the appellant Sushil
Kumar Pandey could not have been
terminated merely upon a show cause
notice. It is also claimed by the appellant
that the order of termination dated 7.6.1983
was never served upon his father, therefore
the same could not have been relied upon
by the learned Single Judge. The learned
Single Judge, therefore, was not justified in
dismissing the writ petition. The appellant
Smt. Saroj Pandey in Special Appeal
No.1557 of 2007 on the other hand, claims
that once having been given appointment to
her son under the Dying-in Harness
Provisions the authorities accepted the legal
death of her husband and, therefore, was
entitled to the family pension and other
benefits that are admissible to the widow
after death of permanent employee and the
learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ
petition has erred in law and, therefore, the
judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge dated 27.9.2007 should be set-aside.

10. We have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties.
2 All] Sushil Kumar Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
847

In
our
considered
opinion,
the
controversy now revolves around the order
of termination dated 7.6.1983 and the letter
dated 10.6.1983 said to have been written
by Jyoti Bhushan Pandey, the father and the
husband of the appellants and the said letter
as claimed by the authorities if found
correct then the case set up by the appellants
will have no legs to stand as then it cannot
be believed that both the appellants are in
any way entitled for any benefit on the
ground of presumed civil death of Jyoti
Bhushan Pandey, who as claimed by the
respondents, was a temporary employee and
was in fact terminated from service on
7.6.1983.

11. Learned Single Judge in order to
satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of
the claims and counter claims made by the
parties summoned the original record and
after carefully scrutinizing them held as
under:

"Assuming
that
a
compassionate
appointee is a regular appointee but on the
facts of this case, he was not entitled for
departmental enquiry because his very
appointment is based on fraud and fraud
vitiates all actions at its very inception.
There is no denial that there was no
declaration of legal death of the father of
the petitioner by any competent court. The
court had summoned the entire record and
after examining it the only conclusion which
could be drawn is that the petitioner and his
mother both have practised fraud upon the
department and one was able to obtain
appointment and other was in the process of
obtaining undue benefit on its basis.

The contention that the termination
order could not operate without being
served, is without any pleadings. There is
absolutely no averment that the termination
order was never served on his father. To the
contrary, a perusal of the record shows that
after receipt of the termination order, his
father has sent a letter dated 10.6.1983. The
termination order and the letter of the
father of the petitioner were closely
examined and it is obvious that both, paper
and the writing thereon is very old and
therefore the further contention that the
petitioner has been framed is incorrect.
There is no averment attaching any motive
or bias on any of the officials of the
department."

12. Sri B.N.Singh, learned counsel for
the appellants has relied upon a Full Bench
decision of Kerala High Court in the case of
Appula Vadhyar Narayana Vadhyar Vs.
Venkateswara Vadhyar and others,
reported in AIR 1971 Kerala 85 wherein
the question involved for the purpose of
determination of limitation for filing a suit
in the case of legal death as contemplated
under Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The Full Bench while tracing
the history of Section 108 from English
Law which states " If a person has not been
heard of for seven years, there is a
presumption of law that he is dead: but at
what time within that period he died is not a
matter of presumption but of evidence, and
the onus of proving that the death took place
at any particular time within the seven years
lies upon a person who claims a right
.........." The facts of the present case are
distinguishable from the facts of the
aforesaid
decision.
However,
no
presumption of death can be drawn, if by
some material on record, it appears that the
said material was of a date after the date of
disappearance as claimed by the appellant.

13. Sri B.N.Singh, learned counsel has
then placed reliance upon the decision of
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Union of India and others Vs. Dinanath
Shantaram Karekar and others, reported
in (1998) 7 SCC 569 and State of Punjab
Vs. Khemi Ram, reported in 1969(3)
SCC 28, in order to assert that any order not
communicated to the affected person cannot
be relied upon. But in the facts of the
present case, the aforesaid decisions are not
applicable, inasmuch as, the order of
termination
dated
7.6.1983
was
communicated to the father of the appellant
and in response thereto he tendered his
representation dated 10.6.1983 and since no
such averment has been made in the writ
petition, the same cannot be raised at this
stage.

14. Similarly, Sri Singh, learned
counsel has also relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Sudesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and
others, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 525
and Mohinder Singh Gill and another
Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner,
New Delhi and others reported in AIR
1978 SC 851. In the case of Sudesh
Kumar (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was dealing with Article 311(2)(b) of
the Constitution of India wherein without
affording any opportunity, dismissal order
was passed. But in the present case,
opportunity by way of show cause notice
was given to the appellant and after
consideration of his reply his appointment
has been cancelled.

15. In the case of Mohinder Singh
Gill (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the validity of an order must be
judged by the reasons so mentioned in that
order which cannot be supplemented by
fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. There is no quarrel with the
aforesaid proposition but the said principle
has no application in the facts of the case at
hand.

16. We have carefully gone through
the averments made by the respective
counsels and the affidavits filed by them as
well as the decisions relied upon and also
the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in
dismissing the writ petition and in the facts
of the present case, we are of the view that
the learned Single Judge was justified in
dismissing the writ petition on the basis of
fraud played for obtaining the appointment
by the appellant.

17. The appellant had claimed that the
father, who was a permanent employee,
went missing from 1.8.1981 and, therefore,
he was presumed dead under Section 108 of
the Indian Evidence Act and thus claimed
benefit of appointment under the Dying-inHarness Rules, 1974 whereas the record
proved that subsequent to the date as
claimed by the appellant the father of the
appellant a temporary employee had
himself represented before the authorities
vide letter dated 10.6.1983 against his
termination order dated 7.6.1983 and the
learned Single Judge, having found the
aforesaid document to be true and genuine,
was quite justified in dismissing the writ
petition. Secondly, in any case the order
terminating the services of the father of the
appellant dated 7.6.1983 became final and
binding as the same has not been challenged
before any authority or Court of Law.
Thirdly and most importantly, we are of the
view that once a High Court Judge himself
summons the record and scrutinizes the
same and enquires into the matter and
comes to the conclusion that a fraud has
been played, unless some very strong
material is shown to rebut the aforesaid
finding it has to be taken as correct.
2 All] Sushil Kumar Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
849

18. In the present case, no such
material has been brought on record to
contradict the findings recorded by the
learned Single Judge. The argument of the
learned counsel for the appellants that
principles of natural justice have been
violated and that non holding of a detailed
enquiry has caused irreparable injury to the
appellant is also misconceived, inasmuch
as, the learned Single Judge issuing writ of
certiorari had called for the record and
examined the same and enquired into the
matter himself and the parties were given
full opportunity to put forward their claim
and
counter
claims
and
after
due
deliberation the learned Judge has recorded
a finding of fraud being committed. The
settled principles of law is that fraud vitiates
everything. Once the factum of fraud having
been found true by the learned Judge the
appellant
now
cannot
insist
upon
departmental enquiry being held especially
in view of the fact that at the time of very
inception into service if an order of
appointment is procured by playing fraud
such an appointee cannot be held to be a
holder of a civil post in order to seek
protection of Article 311 of the Constitution
of India.

19. It may also be noted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
R.Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala
& others, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 in
paragraph 15 held as under:

"This apart, the appellant obtained the
appointment in the service on the basis that
he belonged to a Scheduled Caste
community. When it was found by the
Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong
to the Scheduled Caste Community, then the
very basis of his appointment was taken
away. His appointment was no appointment
in the eye of the law. He cannot claim a
right to the post as he had usurped the post
meant for a reserved candidate by playing a
fraud
and
producing
a
false
caste
certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a
claim to the post on the basis of his
appointment
he
cannot
claim
the
constitutional guarantee given under Article
311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained
the appointment on the basis of a false caste
certificate he cannot be considered to be a
person who holds a post within the meaning
of Article 311 of the Constitution of
India..........."

20. Similarly, in the present case, the
appointment was granted to the appellant on
compassionate ground in view of the fact
that the father of the appellant had died in
harness but since the record reveals
otherwise, the very basis of granting
appointment to the appellant is gone and as
such, the appointment is void ab initio.

21. In the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya
Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath
(dead) by L.Rs. & others, reported in JT
1993 (6) SC 331 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraphs 7 and 8 held as under:

7."We do not agree with the High
Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon
the plaintiff to come to court with a true
case and prove it by true evidence". The
principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be
pressed to the extent of such an absurdity
that it becomes an engine of fraud in the
hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of
law are meant for imparting justice between
the parties. One who comes to the court,
must come with clean hands. We are
constrained to say that more often than not,
process of the court is being abused.
Property-grabbers,
tax-evaders,
bank-
loan-dodgers
and
other
unscrupulous
persons from all walks of life find the court-
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

process a convenient lever to retain the
illegal- gains indefinitely. We have no
hesitation to say that a person, who's case is
based on falsehood, has no right to
approach the court. He can be summarily
thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

8. ......... A fraud is an act of deliberate
deception with the design of securing
something by taking unfair advantage of
another. It is a deception in order to gain by
another's loss. It is a cheating intended to
get an advantage........."

22. Therefore, upon the aforesaid
discussions, we are of the view that the
judgment of the learned Single Judge does
not call for any interference. However, we
have our reservation regarding the portion
of the order by which the learned Single
Judge has directed for recovery of salary
that was paid to the appellant. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
undeniably true that fraud has been played
in obtaining the appointment by the
appellant and it is also true that the said
fraud would have remained undetected if
the mother of the appellant had not applied
for family pension. During this period more
than 10 years had elapsed and the
authorities continued to take work from the
appellant and for the services rendered he
was remunerated by salary. Now after 10
years of service as the appellant has been
dismissed, in such a case, the recovery of
entire salary from the person would be too
severe for the acts and omission on his part
but also the omission and negligence on the
part
of
the
authorities
in
granting
appointment to the appellant, which in the
facts of the case can not be ruled out. Even
otherwise Article 23 of the Constitution of
India prohibits taking of 'Begar'. The Staterespondents having taken work from the
appellant (Sushil Kumar Pandey) for more
then 10 years before the fraud was detected,
cannot be permitted to ask for refund of the
entire salary paid to him as it would amount
to taking of 'Begar' which the Constitution
of India strictly prohibits.

23. Be that as it may, we can also not
shut our eyes to the fact that the salary and
other service benefits extended to the
appellant was result of a fraud committed
by him as held by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, being in respectful agreement
with the judgment of the Hon'ble Judge, but
keeping in view the provisions of Article 23
of the Constitution of India, we are of the
view that it would meet the ends of justice if
the order of the learned Single Judge is
modified to the extent that instead of
recovering entire salary paid to the
appellant, it is directed that the authorities
concerned will be entitled to recover all the
amount paid to the appellant from the public
exchequer during the period that he was in
service except the minimum of the pay scale
admissible to the post held by the appellant.
It is further directed that the authorities are
also at liberty to proceed against the
appellant or any other person or employee
found to have been involved in the
commission of the aforesaid fraud in any
manner as may be permissible in law.

24. Both the appeals are, thus, devoid
of merit and are, accordingly, dismissed.

---------
2 All] Mala Kumari V.State of U.P. and others
851
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED LUCKNOW 22.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Writ Petition No.1596 (S/S) of 2010

Mala Kumari

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties.

Constitution of India-Art 226-PromotionRight of consideration-when D.P.C. Heldentire
service
record
not
placedcommittee deferred the case on that
ground when D.P.C. Met-confidential
report of certain period not availableheld-if no adverse entry given as per rule
1995-shall be presumed no adverse
entry-promotion can not be deniednecessary direction given.

Held Para 13

This Court after considering the issue in
its entirety is of the view that an
employee cannot be made to suffer on
account of non-communication of entries
on the part of the authorities. The timely
recording of the annual entries and
maintenance
of
the
record
is
the
responsibility
of
the
administrative
department and it is incumbent upon the
administrative department to procure all
the informations and provide the same in
the
prescribed
proforma
to
the
Departmental Promotion Committee. The
State Government has taken care of the
situation where such an entry of an
employee is not available then as per the
Government Order dated 20.08.1993 the
said entries have to be reported as blank
and evaluation of the employee is to be
done on the basis of available entries
and the blank entries / unavailable
entries is to be assessed as average of
the available entries. In view of this back
ground there was no occasion for the
Departmental Promotion Committee to
defer the promotion of the petitioner on
account of non-availability of the annual
entries
of
a
particular
year.
Even
otherwise, if there is non-communication
of any adverse entry in the prescribed
time
or
the
representation
of
an
employee is not disposed of in the time
scheduled prescribed under Rule 4 of the
Rules, 1995 the said entries cannot be
read adverse against an employee for
the purposes of promotion, crossing of
efficiency-bar and other service matters.

(Delivered by Hon'ble D. K. Arora, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sudhir Pandey assisted by
Sri Rajendra Pandey, Advocate for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel
for the opposite parties.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to give all
consequential service benefits like promotion
with effect from the date of her juniors have
been given promotion, by opening the sealed
cover
containing
recommendations
of
Departmental Promotion Committee for the
post of Senior Supply Inspector, in the light
of Government Order dated 28.05.1997,
contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition.

3. The brief facts of the case as culled
out from the pleadings of the writ petition are
as under:-

The petitioner was appointed as Supply
Inspector on 11.05.2001 on the basis of
recommendation
of
Public
Service
Commission, U.P., Allahabad and submitted
her first joining in the office of District
Supply Officer, Mirzapur. The petitioner was
transferred from Mirzapur to Lucknow and
functioned in the office of District Supply
Office Lucknow till 06.09.2003. The
petitioner was posted at various places as
Supply Inspector under Area Rationing
Officer and the District Supply Officer,