# UP Judicial Services Asso. & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 930
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-10
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 3747 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/up-judicial-services-asso-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48684
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Maintainability of Writ -
The U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rule 1975
- Rule 5(a), 6 (ii) , 20(2) , 22(1), 22 (3) -
source of recruitment - Quota - Writ of
Mandamus
can
be
claimed
as
a
consequential relief to issuance of a Writ
of Certiorari - absence of a prior demand
and its refusal by the authority concerned
would
not
be
a
bar
against
the
maintainability of the Writ Petition - scope
of interference by Court - writ of Certiorari
cannot be issued where there can be two
opinions about the correctness of the
decision.(Para -17,25)

Petitioners seeking implementation of directions
- issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in
paragraph 28 (1) (a) of judgment (All India
Judges Association and other Vs U.O.I ) - 50 per
cent by promotion from amongst Civil Judges
(Senior Division) - on basis of principle of meritcum-seniority and passing a suitability test.
(Para -19,29)

(B) Maintainability of petition - issuance
of writ of mandamus - pre-condition -
person seeking issuance of a writ should
have first approached the authority
concerned by making a demand of
redressal of his grievances by submitting
a suitable representation
- he can
approach this Court only after the
demand is refused or no decision is
taken in respect of the demand -
petitioner approached Court directly by filing
a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India - seeking issuance of a
writ of mandamus without submitting any
representation
for
redressal
of
their
grievances

-

writ
petition
not
maintainable.(Para -15)

HELD:-In view of prohibition contained in
paragraph 40 of the judgment ( All India Judges
Association and other Vs U.O.I ), Court
restrained from entertaining the proceedings for
implementation of directions given in the
judgment. Writ petition not maintainable. (Para
- 29,30)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Telecommunications),
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow are quashed and are set aside.
The petitioner shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits.

8. The writ petition, accordingly,
stands allowed.
----------
(2022)06ILR A930
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-A No. 3747 of 2022

UP Judicial Services Asso. & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha, Purushottam Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra

(A) Service Law - Maintainability of Writ -
The U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rule 1975
- Rule 5(a), 6 (ii) , 20(2) , 22(1), 22 (3) -
source of recruitment - Quota - Writ of
Mandamus
can
be
claimed
as
a
consequential relief to issuance of a Writ
of Certiorari - absence of a prior demand
and its refusal by the authority concerned
would
not
be
a
bar
against
the
maintainability of the Writ Petition - scope
of interference by Court - writ of Certiorari
cannot be issued where there can be two
opinions about the correctness of the
decision.(Para -17,25)

Petitioners seeking implementation of directions
- issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in
paragraph 28 (1) (a) of judgment (All India
Judges Association and other Vs U.O.I ) - 50 per
cent by promotion from amongst Civil Judges
(Senior Division) - on basis of principle of meritcum-seniority and passing a suitability test.
(Para -19,29)

(B) Maintainability of petition - issuance
of writ of mandamus - pre-condition -
person seeking issuance of a writ should
have first approached the authority
concerned by making a demand of
redressal of his grievances by submitting
a suitable representation
- he can
approach this Court only after the
demand is refused or no decision is
taken in respect of the demand -
petitioner approached Court directly by filing
a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India - seeking issuance of a
writ of mandamus without submitting any
representation
for
redressal
of
their
grievances

-

writ
petition
not
maintainable.(Para -15)

HELD:-In view of prohibition contained in
paragraph 40 of the judgment ( All India Judges
Association and other Vs U.O.I ), Court
restrained from entertaining the proceedings for
implementation of directions given in the
judgment. Writ petition not maintainable. (Para
- 29,30)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar & ors. Vs Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana & anr. , AIR
1984 All 46

2. All India Judges' Association & ors. Vs U.O.I.
& ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit and Sri.
Sanjay Bhasin, Senior Advocates assisted
by Sri V. S. Ojha, Sri. Amarjeet Singh
Yadav and Sri Purushottam Advocates, the
learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri.
Rajesh Tiwari, the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent
and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, the learned
6 All. UP Judicial Services Asso. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
931
Counsel for the opposite party no. 2, i.e.
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed by the U. P. Judicial Services
Association and 39 others. Briefly stated, the
petitioners case is that presently the petitioner
nos. 2 to 40 are working on the post of Civil
Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
/
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate. The year of recruitment of each
of the petitioners, the dates of their promotion
on the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
and the respective places of their present
posting has been given in the petition in a
tabular form. It has further been stated in the
writ petition that the services of petitioner
nos. 2 to 40 were confirmed on 11.08.2021.

3. On 17.12.2020, this Court had issued
an advertisement inviting applications for
filling up 98 vacancies of the Higher Judicial
Service for the recruitment year 2020 through
direct recruitment from amongst the eligible
Advocates under 25% quota provided in Rule
6 (ii) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rule
1975 (which will hereinafter referred to as the
''Rules of 1975'), out of which 87 were current
vacancies and 11 were unfilled vacancies of
reserved category of previous recruitment
year. The petitioners have stated that as the
quota of direct recruitment as provided in Rule
6 (ii) of the Rules of 1975 is 25%, a total of
348 vacancies would be available in the
recruitment year 2020 for U. P. Higher
Judicial
Services
and,
therefore,
after
deducting 11 posts of backlog quota from 65%
of posts i.e. 226 posts, a total of 215 posts out
of 348 vacancies of Higher Judicial Services,
which occurred in the recruitment year 2020,
are to be filled up by promotion from amongst
the Civil Judges (Senior Division).

4.

The
U.P.
Judicial
Services
Association (the petitioner no.1) claims to
have
submitted
a
representation
on
21.01.2021 to the Registrar (Selection and
Appointment) of this High Court stating that
the Judicial Officers in the Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Cadre falling in the Zone of
consideration (three times of number of
vacancies advertised) who have completed
more than two years of service in the Civil
Judge (Senior Division) Cadre, be permitted
to appear in the suitability test for promotion
to the Higher Judicial Service Cadre to
maintain the quota for promotion as per the
Rules of 1975 and to fill the current
vacancies, which will increase by the year
2022 due to retirements in the Higher Judicial
Service Cadre.

5. On 30.05.2022, a notice has been
issued by this Court stating that the
suitability test - 2020 for promotion of
officers in U.P. Nyayik Seva to U.P. Higher
Judicial
Services
will
be
held
on
11.06.2022. The admit cards of suitability
tests may be downloaded by the officers -
candidates. A list of 150 officers, who have
completed three years' service as on
31.12.2021 in the cadre of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), including the names of
the officers who are working as Additional
District Judge (FTC), and are eligible to
appear in the suitability test 2020 under
Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 has been
annexed with the aforesaid notice. The
petitioners have stated that there are 215
vacancies in the Higher Judicial Service for
the recruitment year 2020 available for
being filled up by promotion of Civil
Judges (Senior Division) under Rule 5 (a)
of the Rules of 1975 but the list issued on
30.05.2022 contains the names of only 150
eligible
officers,
which
is
not
in
consonance with the provisions of Rule 20
(2) of the Rules of 1975. As per the
petitioners, the fixation of the cut of date as
31.12.2021 and imposition of the condition
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of having completed three years' service as
on 31.12.2021 in the cadre of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) for eligibility to appear in
the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Suitability
Test 2020 violates Rule 5 (a) of the Rules
of 1975, as the condition of having
completed three years' service in the cadre
of Civil Judge (Senior Division) has not
been provided as an eligibility condition in
the aforesaid Rule. The promotions are to
be made from amongst the Civil Judges
(Senior Division) on the basis of merit -
cum - seniority and passing the suitability
test under Rule-5 (a) of the Rules of 1975,
without any reference to the length of their
service.

6. The petitioners have further stated
that on 18.05.1985, a Full Court Resolution
had been passed by this Court providing
that "no officer of the Nyayik Seva shall be
appointed to any post in any capacity in the
Higher Judicial Service unless he has held
the post of Civil Judge / Chief Judicial
Magistrate at least for three years and his
work and conduct has been satisfactory in
all respect." The petitioners have submitted
that at the time of passing of the aforesaid
Resolution on 18.05.1985, there were only
two sources of recruitment of Higher
Judicial Service; (I) 15% direct recruitment
from amongst the Advocates and (II) 85%
by promotion and no suitability test was
provided for promotion of any service
candidates. As per the petitioners, this
Resolution has lost its efficacy and
applicability since the Rules of 1975 were
amended in the year 2007 and the aforesaid
Resolution violates of Rule 5 (a) of the
Rules of 1975.

7. The petitioners have further
submitted that they have completed more
three years' service as Civil Judges (Senior
Division) as on 30.05.2022 and they have
wrongly been left out from the list
published on 30.05.2022 against the
provision contained in Rule 20 (2) of the
Rules of 1975 as the number of officers to
be included in the list for suitability test
ought to have been four times of the
number of vacancies earmarked for being
filled up by promotion from the officers of
U. P. Nyayik Seva. As per the petitioners,
the eligibility list published on 30.05.2022
should consist of 860 candidates in view of
Rule 20 (2) of Rules of 1975.

8. The petitioners have prayed for
quashing of the aforesaid Resolution No. 2B passed in the meeting of the Full Court
held on 18.05.1985 as also quashing of the
Resolution, if any, passed by the Selection
and Appointment Committee of this Court
to the extent of holding the petitioners no. 2
to 40 to be ineligible for being considered
for promotion under rule 22 (1) of the
Rules of 1975 for the reason that they have
not completed three years of service on the
post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) as on
31.12.2021 and they have prayed for a
direction to the opposite parties to hold all
the
remaining
Civil
Judges
(Senior
Division), including the petitioners, as
eligible for appearing in U. P. Higher
Judicial Service Suitability Test 2020. The
petitioners have further prayed for issuance
of a direction to the opposite parties to
modify the notification dated 30.05.2022 so
as to include the names of the petitioners
no. 2 to 40 as suitable for appearing for
U.P. Higher Judicial Services Suitability
Test 2020.

9. Per contra, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra,
the learned counsel appearing for the
opposite party no. 2 - the Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, has raised
three-fold preliminary objections against
the maintainability of the writ petition. The
6 All. UP Judicial Services Asso. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
933
first objection raised by Sri Mehrotra is that
the petitioner no.1 is an Association and the
writ petition filed by an Association
seeking relief for its members is not
maintainable. To fortify his submission, he
has placed reliance on a Full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Umesh
Chand Vinod Kumar and others vs.
Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
Samiti,
Bharthana and another, AIR 1984 All 46
wherein
the
question
"whether
an
Association or persons, registered or
unregistered, can maintain a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the enforcement of the rights of its
members
as
distinguished
from
the
enforcement of its own rights," was
answered in the following words: -

"The position appears to be that an
association of persons, regis tered or
unregistered, can file a petition under
Article 226 for enforcement of the rights of
its members as distinguished from the
enforcement of its own rights--

(1) In case members of such an
association are themselves unable to
approach the court by reason of poverty,
disability or socially or economically
disadvantaged position ("little Indians").

(2) In case of a public injury leading
to public interest litigation; provided the
association has some concern deeper than
that of a wayfarer or a busybody, i.e., it has
a special interest in the subject-matter.

(3) Where the rules or regulations of
the association specifically authorise it to
take legal proceedings on behalf of its
members, so that any order passed by the
court in such proceedings will be binding
on the members.

In other cases an association, whether
registered or unregistered, cannot maintain
a petition under Article 226 for the
enforcement or protection of the rights of
its members, as distinguished from the
enforcement of its own rights."

9. Sri Mehrotra submits that in the
entire writ petition, there is no pleading as
to what is the legal character of the
petitioner no. 1 Association indicating
whether it is a juristic person or not; there
is no plea indicating that members of the
petitioner no.1 - Association are unable to
approach this Court themselves by reason
of poverty, disability or socially or
economically disadvantageous position; on
the contrary the members of the petitioner
no.1- Association are holding the post of
Civil Judges (Senior Division) and they
cannot claim to fall in any disadvantageous
position. Sri Mehrotra submits that it is not
a case in which there is any allegation of a
public injury. Neither the Rules or
Regulations of the Association have been
brought on record nor is there any pleading
to the effect that the Rules or Regulations
of the Association authorize it to take legal
proceedings on behalf of its members. Sri
Mehrotra has submitted that as per the Full
Bench decision in the case of Umesh
Chand
Vinod
Kumar
(supra),
the
petitioner
no.
1
Association
cannot
maintain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for enforcement or
protection of any of the alleged rights of its
members.

10. Sri Sandeep Dixit, the learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioners could not rebut the aforesaid
submission of Sri Mehrotra and he
proceeded to make submissions regarding
the merits of the claim of the petitioners.

11. Keeping in view the law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar
(supra), we are of the considered opinion
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the petitioner no.1 - Association has no
right to maintain the writ petition which has
been filed for ventilating the grievances of
a class of its members.

12. However, as there are 39 other
petitioners also, who have approached this
Court by joining in filing of the writ
petition, we proceed to consider the other
submissions made by the contesting parties.

13. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra has raised
the second preliminary objection against
maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground that it seeks issuance of a writ of
Mandamus directing the opposite parties to
hold all the remaining Civil Judges (Senior
Division), including the petitioners, as
eligible to appear in U.P. Higher Judicial
Services Suitability Test 2020. The learned
counsel representing the High Court has
submitted that only the petitioner no. 2 to
40 have approached this Court for redressal
of their grievances and the remaining Civil
Judges (Senior Division) have not joined in
filing the writ petition and, therefore, the
writ petition so far as the same relates to
the other Civil Judge (Senior Division),
who have not approached this Court by
filing the writ petition, is not maintainable.

14. We find substance in this
objection as the petitioner numbers 2 to 40
cannot represent the remaining Civil Judges
(Senior Division), who have chosen not to
file a Writ Petition and the petitioner
numbers 2 to 40 have rightly not filed this
Writ Petition in a representative capacity.
Therefore, no relief can be sought in this
Writ Petition on behalf of the remaining
Civil Judges (Senior Division), who have
chosen not to file a Writ Petition.

15. A further preliminary objection of
Sri Mehrotra is that the writ petition
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus in
respect of the petitioner nos. 2 to 40 is also
not maintainable for the reason that for
maintaining a petition for issuance of a writ
of mandamus, it is a pre-condition that the
person seeking issuance of a writ should
have
first
approached
the
authority
concerned by making a demand of
redressal of his grievances by submitting a
suitable representation and he can approach
this Court only after the demand is refused
or no decision is taken in respect of the
demand. As the petitioner nos. 2 to 40 have
approached this Court directly by filing a
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for seeking issuance
of a writ of mandamus without submitting
any representation for redressal of their
grievances, the writ petition filed by them,
is not maintainable.

16.

Refuting
this
preliminary
objection, Sri. Sandeep Dixit, the learned
Senior
Advocate
representing
the
petitioners,
has
submitted
that
the
petitioners have prayed for issuance of a
Writ of Certiorari quashing the Resolution
No. 2-B passed in the meeting of the Full
Court held on 18.05.1985 as also quashing
of the Resolution, if any, passed by the
Selection and Appointment Committee of
this Court to the extent of holding the
petitioners no. 2 to 40 to be ineligible for
being considered for promotion under rule
22 (1) of the Rules of 1975 for the reason
that they have not completed three years of
service on the post of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) as on 31.12.2021 and they have
sought issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to
the opposite parties to hold all the
remaining Civil Judges (Senior Division),
including the petitioners, as eligible for
appearing in U. P. Higher Judicial Service
Suitability Test 2020 only as a consequence
of issuance of the Writ of Certiorari and in
6 All. UP Judicial Services Asso. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
935
such circumstances, the bar pleaded by the
learned Counsel for the High Court would
not apply.

17. We find force in the aforesaid
submission
of
Sri.
Dixit
and
this
preliminary
objection
raised
by
Sri.
Mehrotra that the Writ Petition for the
relief of issuance of a writ of Mandamus is
not maintainable for the reason that the
petitioner numbers 2 to 40 have not first
approached the authority concerned by
making
a
representation,
cannot
be
accepted. A Writ of Mandamus can be
claimed as a consequential relief to
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari and absence
of a prior demand and its refusal by the
authority concerned would not be a bar
against the maintainability of the Writ
Petition in such circumstances.

18. Now we proceed to examine the
further submissions made by the learned
Counsel for the petitioners. Sri. Sandeep
Dixit has submitted that originally Rule 5 of
the Rules of 1975 provided as follows: -

5. Sources of recruitment - The
recruitment to the service shall be made-

(a) by direct recruitment of pleaders and
advocates of not less than seven years'
standing on the first day of January next
following the year in which the notice inviting
applications is published;

(b) by promotion of confirmed members
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Nyayik
Sewa
(hereinafter referred to as the Nyayik Sewa),
who have put in not less than seven years
service to be computed on the first day of
January next following the year in which the
notice inviting application is published.......

19. In the case of All India Judges'
Association and others vs. Union of India
and others, (2002) 4 SCC 247, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had issued the following
directions for recruitment to the Higher
Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of District
Judges: -

"28. As a result of the aforesaid, to
recapitulate, we direct that recruitment to
the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of
District Judges will be:

(1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from
amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division)
on the basis of principle of merit-cumseniority and passing a suitability test;

(b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly
on the basis of merit through limited
competitive examination of Civil Judges
(Senior Division) having not less than five
years' qualifying service; and
(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by
direct recruitment from amongst the
eligible advocates on the basis of the
written and viva voce test conducted by
respective High Courts.
(2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as
above by the High Courts as early as
possible."

20. Sri. Dixit has submitted that the
Rules of 1975 were amended after passing
of the aforesaid judgment in All India
Judges Association case by means of a
notification dated 09.01.2007 so as to
provide as follows: -

5.
Source
of
recruitment-
The
recruitment to the service shall be made (a)
by promotion from amongst the Civil
Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of
principle
of
merit-cum-seniority
and
passing a suitability test.

(b) by promotion strictly on the basis
of merit
through limited competitive
examination of
Civil
Judges
(Senior
Division) having not less than five years
qualifying service;
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c) by direct recruitment from amongst
the Advocates of not less than seven years
standing as on the last date fixed for the
submission of application forms.

21. He has submitted that although
Sub-rule (b) and (c) of Rule-5 of the Rules
of 1975 make a reference to a minimum
period of experience as an eligibility
condition, Sub-rule (a) which contains the
provision for making recruitment by
promotion from amongst the Civil Judges
(Senior Division) on the basis of merit cum
seniority and passing a suitability test, does
not contain any reference to any number of
years put in service as an eligibility
condition and he has further submitted that
after the amendment made in Rule 5, the
Resolution dated 18.05.1985 passed by the
Full Court providing that no officer of the
Nyayik Seva shall be appointed to any post
in any capacity in Higher Judicial Service
unless he has held the post of Civil Judge /
Chief Judicial Magistrate at least for three
years, has lost its efficacy as the same runs
contrary to the provision contained in Rule
5 (a) of Rules of 1975.

22. On the contrary Sri Gaurav
Mehrotra has submitted that Sub-rule (3) of
Rule 20 of the Rules of 1975 provides that
"the Selection Committee shall, after
examining the record of the officers
included in the list prepared under Sub-rule
(2) of the Rules of 1975 make a
preliminary selection of the Officers who
in its opinion are fit to be appointed on
the basis of merit-cum-seniority. In
assessing the merit of a candidate the
Selection Committee have due regard to his
service record, ability, character and
seniority............". (Emphasis supplied)

23.

On
the
basis
of
written
instructions received, Sri. Gaurav Mehrotra
has submitted that the Hon'ble Selection
and Appointment Committee of this Court
in its meeting held on 30.05.2022 has been
pleased to resolve as under: -

".....in light of earlier resolution dated
18.05.1985 of Full Court resolved to fix the
cut off date for determining the qualifying
service as 31.12.2021. The Committee
deliberated over the matter and is of the
view that since the determination of
vacancies for recruitment of U.P. H.J.S.-
2020 accounts for vacancies occurring
from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2021, there is no
occasion to go beyond that date to fix any
date to determine the qualifying service in
Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre for
consideration of their promotion to Higher
Judicial cadre. Moreover, any relaxation in
the determination of qualifying service of
three years would result in higher number
of vacancies in the Civil Judge (Senior
Division)
who
possess
the
requisite
qualification qualifying service in that
cadre to be considered for promotion to the
cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division).
Such a scenario would bring about a
situation where the cadre of Civil Judge
(Senior Division) will collapse owing to
huge number of vacant Courts. Thus, the
Committee resolves to reject the request
made in the representation."

24. Sri. Mehrotra has further
submitted that in paragraph 40 of the
judgment in the case of All India Judges'
Association (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court categorically directed that: -

"40. Any clarification that may be
required in respect of any matter arising
out of this decision will be sought only from
this Court. The proceedings, if any, for
implementation of the directions given in
this judgment shall be filed only in this
6 All. UP Judicial Services Asso. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
937
Court and no other court shall entertain
them."

25. The scope of interference by this
Court while deciding the petition for
issuance
of
Certiorari
is
limited
to
examining the decision making process by
examining as to whether the decision
making process suffers from any illegality
or infirmity. The correctness of the decision
cannot be examined by this Court while
deciding a petition for issuance of a writ of
Certiorari. The decision can only be
examined
on
the
touchstone
of
reasonableness and arbitrariness but the
sufficiency or correctness of the reasons
cannot be gone into by this Court. A writ of
Certiorari cannot be issued where there can
be two opinions about the correctness of
the decision.

27.

After
giving
a
careful
consideration to submissions advanced on
behalf of the contesting parties, we find
that the list of only those Civil Judges
(Senior Division) who have completed
three years' service has been prepared
treating them eligible to appear in the
Suitability Test 2022 under Rule 22 (3) in
furtherance of decision of the Selection and
Appointment Committee which has formed
a reasoned opinion in exercise of its power
under Rule 20 (3) that only those officers
are fit to be considered for appointment on
the basis of merit-cum-seniority who have
completed a minimum period of three years
on the post of Civil Judge (Senior
Division). This decision has been taken by
the Selection and Appointment Committee
keeping
into
consideration
that
the
vacancies had occurring up to 31.12.2021
and it was felt not to be proper to go
beyond that date to fix any date to
determine the qualifying service in Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division)
cadre
for
consideration of their promotion to Higher
Judicial cadre. The Committee was also of
the opinion that by inclusion of Civil
Judges (Senior Division) who have not
completed three years on the said post
would result in higher number of the Courts
of Civil Judge (Senior Division) falling
vacant and this would create a situation
where the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) will collapse owing to huge
number of vacant Courts. Therefore, the list
of officers prepared under Rule 22 (3) of
the Rules of 1975 consequent to the
aforesaid decision, needs no interference by
this Court in exercise of its Writ
jurisdiction.

28. Moreover, so far as the
submission of the petitioners that the
decision is violative of Rule 5A of the
Rules
1975
which
was
framed
in
furtherance of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of All India
Judges Association (supra), it is significant
to mention that in the same judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed "any
clarification that may be required in
respect of any matter arising out of this
decision will be sought only from this
Court.
The
proceeding
if
any
for
implementation of the directions given in
this judgment shall be filed only in this
Court and no other Court shall entertain
them."

29. The petitioners are in effect
seeking implementation of the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
contained in paragraph 28 (1) (a) of the
judgment in the case of All India Judges
Association (supra). In view of the
prohibition contained in paragraph 40 of
the aforesaid judgment, this Court has been
restrained
from
entertaining
the
proceedings
for
implementation
of
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
directions given in the judgment and,
therefore, we are of the considered opinion
that this Court cannot entertain the present
writ petition.

30. Accordingly, the writ petition is not
maintainable before this Court and is
dismissed as such. However, there shall no
order as to costs.
----------
(2022)06ILR A938
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal No. 111 of 2022

C/M Pandit Ram Murat Ram Surat Mishra
Pvt Indu. Training Institute, Azamgarh &
Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellnts:
Sri Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.), Sri Siddhrth Khare,
Sri Parashar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Mahabir Singh, Sri Rajesh Tripathi,
Sri Ramanand Pandey (Addl. C.S.C.)

(A)
Misc.
Law
-
Order
passed
by
Government of India, Ministry of Skill
Development
and
Entrepreneurship,
Directorate
General
of
Training,
-
appellants-Institutes
(40
ITIs)
deaffiliated and debarred for three years - no
further admissions allowed to them from
session 2021 - appellants furnished forged
bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- per unit -
found to be forged - punishment imposed
by Central Government - disproportionate.
(Para - 2,3,6)

HELD:-40 Institutes inflicted with punishment
and only 13 Institutes joined writ petition. Only
8 Institutes come in appeal. One Institute in
another appeal. All Institutes not challenged
order, realising that they had committed fraud
by submitting forged bank guarantees, hence
were liable to be punished for the same.(Para -
9)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.,
& Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Order dated January 17, 2022
passed by learned Single Judge has been
impugned by filing the present intra-court
appeal. Vide aforesaid order, two writ
petitions including the writ petition filed by
the appellants herein, bearing Writ-C
No.28322 of 2021, were dismissed.

2. Challenge in the aforesaid writ
petition was to the order dated September
17, 2021 passed by the Government of
India, Ministry of Skill Development and
Entrepreneurship, Directorate General of
Training, vide
which
the
appellantsInstitutes were de-affiliated and debarred
for three years and no further admissions
were to be allowed to them from the
session 2021. The relevant portion of the
order dated September 17, 2021 is
reproduced below:

"Committee
approved
for
Deaffiliation of these 40 ITIs and debarred
them for 3 years. No further admissions to
be allowed to these ITIs from session
2021."

3. The aforesaid order was passed on
account of the fact that the appellants had
furnished
forged
bank
guarantee
of
₹50,000/- per unit.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the condition for submission