# Vikas Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 1003
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-08-17
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 7386 of 2015
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vikas-kumar-v-union-of-india-ors-43213
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-26-Right to
appointment-cancellation-allegations
of
cheating during examination-with identical
allegation-Writ Petition allowed by Delhi
High Court-not stayed by Supreme Court as
yet-held-cancellation of appointment on
highly belated stage when violation of
principle of Natural Justice-not sustainablediscussed.
Held: Para-14
It has been categorically brought on
record that the petitioner has already been
selected in the Combined Graduate Level
Examination 2012. The result was declared
on 8.2.2013 and the authority concerned
has already verified the documents and his
medical examination has already been
taken place. Therefore, at this stage, the
claim of the petitioner cannot be denied.
Case Law discussed:
W.P. © 9055 OF 2014 and C.M. No. 20669 -
670/2014

## Text

2 All] Vikas Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1003
51.
So far as the issue no. 'D' is
concerned, it has been dealt with extensively,
herein above. In our opinion for a case to be
treated as tied up or part heard, it must have
been extensively heard on merits by the
Judge/Bench concerned. The Bench should
have spent sufficient time for hearing of the
matter on merits so that administration of
justice would require the case to be
heard/disposed of by the same Bench. It is
only such cases which have to be placed
before the Chief Justice for consideration as
to whether the matter has to be listed before
the same Bench or not.
52. So far as the issue nos. 'E & F'
are concerned, we find that nomination of
cases are made in different contingencies.
For example :
(a) where there are large number of
fresh cases filed before a particular
Bench;
(b) when a particular Judge recuses
himself from the case;
(c) when there are orders on the
judicial side by the Supreme Court or a
larger Bench of the High Court for the
matter being placed before another Bench.
53.
The nomination/assignment of
fresh cases is made for a particular purpose
i.e. to clear the backlog of fresh cases before
the
particular
Judge/Bench
having
jurisdiction as per the roster. The purpose
exhausts itself once the roster is changed.
Therefore, in respect of fresh cases the
nomination/assignment must come to an end
with the change of the roster.
54.
So far as the cases which are
nominated because of the Judge recuses
himself, we are of the considered opinion that
having regard to the status of the case i.e. (a)
whether the case has been admitted and (b)
whether the case has been fixed for final
hearing etc, the Chief Justice may consider
making an appropriate nomination i.e. whether
the nomination would continue till admission
or till disposal of the case or till the change of
the roster. This would obliviate any confusion,
both in the mind of the litigant as well as in the
minds of the officials of the Registry, regarding
listing of the case after the change of the roster.
55. So far as the third category of
cases are concerned, we are of the
considered opinion that the Chief Justice
may consider application of the same
principle as in the cases covered by
category 'B' above.
56. In respect of the last question, we are
of the opinion that the nomination by the Chief
Justice in the name of one of the member of the
Bench would suffice inasmuch as if for certain
reasons the other member of the Bench is not
available, the case can still proceed. This will
avoid unnecessary delay in the disposal of the
matter. The nomination can be in the name of
the senior member of the Bench or in the name
of the other member of the Bench, as may be
deemed fit, by the Chief Justice.
57. All the questions referred are
answered accordingly.
58. Let the records of Criminal
Appeal No. 4922 of 2006 be placed
before the Chief Justice for appropriate
orders for listing of the appeal.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 7386 of 2015
1004
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vikas Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, Sri Rahul
Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., S.C., Sri S.K. Pandey
Constitution of India, Art.-26-Right to
appointment-cancellation-allegations
of
cheating during examination-with identical
allegation-Writ Petition allowed by Delhi
High Court-not stayed by Supreme Court as
yet-held-cancellation of appointment on
highly belated stage when violation of
principle of Natural Justice-not sustainablediscussed.
Held: Para-14
It has been categorically brought on
record that the petitioner has already been
selected in the Combined Graduate Level
Examination 2012. The result was declared
on 8.2.2013 and the authority concerned
has already verified the documents and his
medical examination has already been
taken place. Therefore, at this stage, the
claim of the petitioner cannot be denied.
Case Law discussed:
W.P. © 9055 OF 2014 and C.M. No. 20669 -
670/2014
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)
1. Heard Shri Umesh Narain
Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Rahul Srivastava for the petitioner and
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey for the
respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for quashing the order
dated 13.1.2015 passed by the Deputy Director,
Staff Selection Commission (Central Region),
8-AB, Beli Road, Allahabad-respondent no.3
on approval of the Regional Director, Staff
Selection Commission (Central Region), 2123, Lowther Road, Allahabad-respondent no.2.
He
has
further
prayed
for
direction
commanding the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to
issue necessary directions to the office of
Commissioner of Customs (General), New
Custom House, Ballad Estate, Mumbai
regarding issuance of appointment letter to him
in pursuance of his final selection on the post of
Tax Assistant in the office of Commissioner of
Customs (General), New Custom House,
Ballad Estate, Mumbai.
3. The matter was again taken up on
11.3.2015 and this Court had passed the
following orders:-
"Heard Shri Umesh Narain Sharma,
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul
Srivastava for the petitioner and Shri
Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the respondents.
This Court vide order dated 6.2.2015
had passed the following orders:-
"Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel has put in appearance on behalf
of the respondents by filing his parcha
today, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Umesh Narain Sharma,
assisted by Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned
Counsel has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Delhi High Court passed
in Writ Petition (C) No.7484 of 2013
dated 17.12.2014 Ashwani Kumar vs.
Union of India and others.
Learned Counsel for the respondents
prays for and is granted two weeks' time
to seek instructions in the matter.
Put up this matter as fresh on 23rd
February, 2015."
2 All] Vikas Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1005
Again the matter was taken up on
23.2.2015 and on the said date, a last
opportunity of two weeks' and no more
time had been granted to learned counsel
for the respondents to obtain instructions
in the matter.
Today when the matter was taken up,
learned counsel for the respondents prays
for an adjournment on the basis of a letter
dated 20.2.2015 sent by Shri A.K. Jha,
Assistant Director (Legal) and while
seeking adjournment, no affidavit has
been filed in the matter.
Put up this matter as fresh on
30.3.2015.
It is directed that meanwhile, if the
order dated 6.2.2015 has not been
complied with, Shri A.K. Jha, Assistant
Director (Legal) shall remain present
before this Court on the next date.
4. Thereafter, the matter was again
taken up on 4.8.2015 and this Court had
passed following order:-
"In para-19 of short counter affidavit,
it has been averred that the Commission
has taken a decision to assail the
judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court
dated 17.12.2014 in Writ Petition (C)
7484/2013 by means of SLP. This
affidavit was sworn in the month of
March, 2015 and considerable time has
been lapsed in between.
Learned counsel for the contesting
respondents prays for and is allowed three
days time to obtain instructions whether
any SLP has been filed or not.
List this matter again on 10.8.2015 in
the top 10 cases of the cause list."
5. It appears from the record that the
petitioner is a resident of District Vaishali
and belongs to Other Backward Classes
category in the State of Bihar. The
petitioner has qualified more than 15
competitive examinations conducted by
various Selection Commissions/Boards.
He applied for and was declared qualified
in the final result of Combined Graduate
Level Examination-2012 declared on
8.2.2013, conducted by Staff Selection
Commission (North Eastern Region),
Guwahati.
The
petitioner
was
recommended to be appointed on the post
of Tax Assistant in the office of
Commissioner of Customs (General),
New Custom House, Ballad Estate,
Mumbai.
6. A show cause notice dated
3.1.2013 was issued to him alleging, that
the petitioner had committed fraud and
malpractice in Sub Inspector in CPO's,
Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF and
Intelligence Officer (IO) in Narcotics
Control Bureau (NCB) Examination-2011
and accordingly, he was directed to show
cause as to why his candidature for
Examination-2011 may not be cancelled.
The petitioner appeared in person before
the respondents on 23.1.2013. He was
directed to sign 40 times in Hindi as well
as in English on blank sheets of paper.
His left and right thumb impression were
also taken by the respondents. By the
Office Memorandum dated 6.2.2013 the
candidature of the petitioner for the
Examination-2011 was cancelled and the
petitioner was debarred for a period of
five years from the date of written
examination dated 28.8.2011 of the
Examination-2011 from appearing in any
of the examinations conducted by the
Commission. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid
show
cause
notice
dated
3.1.2013 and the final order dated
6.2.2013, the petitioner filed a Writ
Petition No.57401 of 2013. The said writ
petition was allowed on 27.5.2014 by
1006
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
quashing the impugned orders therein and
the
respondents
were
directed
to
reconsider the matter after disclosing the
material to the petitioner on the basis of
which the charge of impersonation is
sought to be sustained and pass a final
order after giving opportunity to the
petitioner to submit a detailed reply.
7. In the meantime, the office of the
Commissioner of Customs (General),
New Custom House, Ballad Estate,
Mumbai on the basis of final result dated
8.2.2013 for the post of Tax Assistant,
sent a call letter dated 9.11.2013 to the
petitioner
for
appearing
before
the
authority concerned for the purpose of
verification of documents as well as
medical
examination.
The
petitioner
appeared before the Commissioner of
Customs (General), New Custom House,
Ballad Estate, Mumbai and produced the
required
documents.
He
was
also
medically examined and declared fit.
When the appointment letter was not
issued to him, he made a representation
before the respondent no.4 on 26.6.2014.
A show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner on 9.9.2014, by which the
earlier charge of impersonation was
changed
to
the
charge
of
malpractice/unfair means. Inspite of the
order of this Court dated 27.5.2014, no
material/evidence was served upon the
petitioner alongwith the show cause
notice dated 9.9.2014. The petitioner filed
a detailed reply dated 30.9.2014, denying
all the allegations levelled against him.
8. Being aggrieved by the inaction
of the respondents, the petitioner again
preferred a Writ Petition No.62827 of
2014 challenging the show cause notice
dated 9.9.2014. The said writ petition was
disposed of on 24.11.2014 with a
direction to the respondents to consider
the reply of the petitioner dated 30.9.2014
and pass order within two months. The
petitioner
preferred
Special
Appeal
No.1146 of 2014 challenging a part of the
order dated 24.11.2014 by which this
Court directed the respondents to lodge a
first information
report
against
the
petitioner. The Special Appeal is still
pending. By the impugned order dated
13.1.2015
the
candidature
of
the
petitioner for the Examination-2011 has
been cancelled and he has been debarred
for a period of three years since 28.8.2011
from appearing in any of the examinations
conducted
by
the
Staff
Selection
Commission on the ground of cheating
with one Ashwani Kumar.
9. It has been averred in the writ
petition that Ashwani Kumar, who has
been named alongwith the petitioner, was
also issued an order dated 9.2.2013 while
he was already inducted into the service
and was also serving as Assistant Sub
Inspector (Executive) in Central Industrial
Security Force. By the order dated
9.2.2013 the services of Ashwani Kumar
were terminated and he was further
debarred to appear in any of the
examinations conducted by the Staff
Selection Commission. Shri Ashwani
Kumar challenged the said order dated
9.2.2013 before Delhi High Court by way
of Writ Petition (C) No.2514 of 2013.
Several other candidates, who were facing
the similar stigma, also preferred writ
petitions before Delhi High Court. The
Writ Petition (C) No.2514 of 2013 filed
by Ashwani Kumar as well as the bunch
of writ petitions were heard by Delhi
High
Court
and
vide
order
dated
30.5.2013 all the writ petitions were
allowed and the order dated 9.12.2013
was set aside. Thereafter, the respondents
2 All] Vikas Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1007
again issued a show cause notice to
Ashwani Kumar, alleging malpractice and
unfair means in the examination. The
aforesaid show cause notice was again
assailed by Ashwani Kumar before Delhi
High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.7484
of 2013 (Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of
India and others). Hon'ble Delhi High
Court, after hearing the parties vide order
dated 17.12.2014 allowed the aforesaid
writ petition and set aside the impugned
orders dated 9.10.2013 and 21.11.2013
therein and also directed the respondents
to allow the petitioners to continue the
service so allotted to them.
10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned
order has been passed without furnishing
any evidence or material whatsoever to
the petitioner. The petitioner has also not
been afforded any opportunity of hearing
to defend his case. Whole proceeding has
been carried out at the back of the
petitioner in an ex-parte manner. For the
first time after four years the respondents
have passed the impugned order dated
13.1.2015 on the ground of cheating with
one Ashwani Kumar. He submits that
since Ashwani Kumar has already been
held to be innocent by the Division Bench
of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the
impugned
orders
issued
by
the
respondents have been quashed by the
Delhi High Court, the charges levelled
against the petitioner are absolutely false
and frivolous.
11. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also placed his reliance on a
Division Bench judgment of Delhi High
Court in Writ Petition (C) 9055/2014 and
C.M. No.20669-670/2014 (Staff Selection
Commission & another vs. Sudesh)
decided on 19.12.2014. In the aforesaid
writ
petition,
the
Staff
Selection
Commission challenged the common
order dated 30.7.2014 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal in OA
No.930/2014 (Sudesh vs. Staff Selection
Commission & ors) by which the Tribunal
allowed the Original Application and
quashed the second show cause notice
dated 28.1.2014 issued to the applicant for
adopting malpractice/cheating in Tier-II
examination. The Tribunal directed the
petitioner to declare the result of the
respondent applicant and other applicants
appeared in Combined Graduate Level
Examination-2012 and to allocate them
the service for which they are found
eligible on the basis of pure merit. The
Delhi High Court dismissed the writ
petition and held in paragraph 12 to 16 as
follows:-
"12. We have heard learned counsel
for the petitioner, perused the impugned
order and the relevant record and
considered the submissions. The first
show-cause notice was quashed by the
Tribunal, firstly on the ground that it
lacked in material particulars inasmuch,
as, it did not contain any details of the
alleged malpractice/ copying and the
modus operandi allegedly adopted by the
applicant in coming to the conclusion that
the applicant had resorted to any
malpractices/ copying in the Tier-II
examination. It is, precisely, for this
reason that the Tribunal required the
furnishing of details, as aforesaid in
paragraphs 20 to 24 of its order dated
22.11.2013. The rationale behind the
petitioner SSC being required to furnish
the details was simply that the applicant
and other candidates could not be
condemned on the basis of vague and
non-specific allegation of a serious nature,
which impinge on their candidature and
1008
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
future prospects. If, according to the
petitioner, malpractice/ cheating had been
resorted to by the applicant and the other
candidates, it was essential that such
candidates were, at least, informed of the
basis on which it had been concluded, or a
prima-facie view formed, that such
malpractices/ act of cheating had been
undertaken. The petitioner should have
given the reasons for its said conclusions,
by disclosing as to what was the analysis
undertaken
by
the
experts/
outside
agency; what was the pattern discerned by
the outside experts upon analysis of the
answer-sheets of all such candidates, and;
that the disclosed pattern could lead to a
reasonable inference ? with a very high
probability/ near certainty of cheating/
malpractice. Without such disclosure, the
applicant and other candidates were left in
the dark, not knowing how to meet the
serious allegations made against them,
except by simply denying the same ?
which they did.
13. A comparison of the two showcause notices issued gives the impression
that the petitioner merely window-dressed
the earlier show-cause notice, and served
the same upon the applicant again. In fact,
there was hardly any difference in the
two.
The
show-cause
notice
dated
28.01.2014 issued to the respondentapplicant in its entirety reads as follows:
"SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
1. Whereas Shri Sudesh, Son of Shri
Parvinder Kumar R/o H.No.228, Gali
No.2, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur, Delhi
was a candidate of Combined Graduate
Level Examination 2012 which was
notified in the Employment News dated
20.04.2012 and appeared with Roll
number
2201520498
for
the
said
examination.
2.
Whereas
Shri
Sudesh
was
provisionally
called
for
Computer
Proficiency Test (CPT)and interview cum
personality
Test
of
the
aforesaid
examination and appeared in the said CPT
and
Interview
on
12.11.2012
and
01.01.2013 respectively.
3. Whereas the Commission, the
Competent Authority in the matter, has
made a conscious decision with a view to
protecting the integrity of the selection
process and to prevent candidates who are
prima facie found to indulge in unfair
means in such examination from entering
into government service through such
manipulative practices.
4. Whereas the Commission gets
regular post-examination scrutiny and
analysis of performance of the candidates
in objective type multiple choice question
papers conducted with the help of experts
who have proven expertise in such
scrutiny and analysis and had undertaken
such scrutiny and analysis in the case of
written
examination
papers
of
the
aforesaid examination.
5. Whereas incontrovertible and
reliable evidence has emerged during
such scrutiny and analysis that Shri
Sudesh had resorted to malpractice/unfair
means in the said papers in association
with other 46 candidates/ candidates in
Paper I of Tier II and 44 with other
candidates/ candidates in Paper II of Tier
II.
6. Now, therefore, Hon?ble CAT,
New Delhi directed vide its order dated
22.11.2013 in OA No. 2404/2013. Sh.
Sudesh son of Sh. Parvinder Kumar is
hereby informed that he had restored to
malpractice with the candidates as per list
enclosed.
2 All] Vikas Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1009
7. In view of the above he is directed
to show cause within 10 days of issue of
this detailed show cause notice as to why
his candidature may not be cancelled and
he may not be debarred from the
Commission?s examination for the next
five years.?
14. Though the same makes a
mention in paragraph 6 of the list of
candidates ? in collusion with whom the
applicant
allegedly
resorted
to
malpractice, once again, the petitioner
failed to provide the basis for the
allegation of malpractice/ copying.
15. In our view, therefore, the
Tribunal was justified in quashing the
second show-cause notice which suffered
from the same lacunae of being vague and
devoid of any relevant particulars, and
there was no purpose in permitting the
petitioner to deal with the replies and pass
any further order on the basis of such a
vague show-cause notice. The said showcause notice did not fulfill the basic
requirements of principles of natural
justice inasmuch, as, the respondentapplicant could not effectively have met
the allegations made against him ? except
to deny the same (which he did), in view
of the show-cause notice itself being
completely
vague
and
devoid
of
particulars.
16.Consequently, we find no merit in
the present petition and dismiss the
same."
12. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
submits that the petitioner appeared and was
selected in the final result of Combined
Graduate Level Examination-2012. He was
issued the show cause notice dated 9.9.2014 as
to why his candidature in recruitment of SI in
CPOs ASI in CISF & Intelligence Officer (IO)
in
Narcotics
Control
Bureau
(NCB)
Examination, 2011 should not be cancelled and
also why he should not be debarred for a period
of three years from appearing in any of the
examination conducted by the Staff Selection
commission. He filed a Writ Petition No.62827
of 2014, which was disposed of on 24.11.2014
with direction to decide the reply of the
petitioner dated 31.9.2014 within two months.
The Commission has carefully considered the
reply dated 31.9.2014 of the petitioner. In the
written examination for Paper-II, the petitioner
and Shri Ashwani Kumar were seated in the
same venue in one row, one after the other.
There was very high matching of answers of
both the candidates. The extant of such
matching, including matching of wrong
answers, cannot happen by chance and clearly
establishes collusion among the candidates to
copy or to get the answers from a common
source. The Commission has come to the
conclusion that the petitioner resorted to
malpractice/unfair
means
in
the
same
Examination and cancelled the candidate of the
petitioner in the said examination. The
petitioner was also debarred for a period of
three years from the date of examination i.e.
28.8.2011 from appearing in any of the
examination conducted by the Staff Selection
Commission. The petitioner filed a Writ
Petition No.62827 of 2014, which was
disposed of on 24.11.2014. In compliance of
the order of this Court dated 24.11.2014, the
representation of the petitioner has been
rejected. The petitioner filed a Special Appeal
No.1146 of 2014 against the order dated
24.11.2014, which is still pending. Meanwhile,
the petitioner filed the present writ petition
claiming the same benefit as provided to Shri
Ashwani
Kumar.
The
Commission
is
considering to file a SLP against the judgment
dated 17.12.2014 before Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
13. It is apparent from the record that
Ashwani Kumar had filed the writ petition
1010
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the Delhi High Court impleading the
respondents as opposite parties and the issue
before the Delhi High Court was exactly the
same as in the present case. The Delhi High
Court vide order dated 17.12.2014 allowed
the writ petition filed by Ashwani Kumar
and since Ashwani Kumar has already been
held to be innocent by the Division Bench of
Delhi High Court and the impugned orders
issued by the respondents have been
quashed, the charges levelled against the
petitioner cannot be sustained. Moreover,
Ashwani Kumar has already been given an
appointment on the basis of selection held in
the year 2011, whereas in the subsequent
year in 2012 the petitioner has been selected
and the impugned order has been passed on
the ground of cheating with one Ashwani
Kumar. The similar allegation was levelled
against Ashwani Kumar and once the
Division Bench of Delhi High Court has
already set aside the orders, which had been
passed against Ashwani Kumar for his
termination and for the same recruitment
year, he has been given an appointment and
he is still working, at this stage, taking a
shelter of malpractice/cheating adopted by
the petitioner in the examination of 2011 the
appointment of the petitioner in the
subsequent recruitment year cannot be
denied.
14. It has been categorically brought
on record that the petitioner has already
been selected in the Combined Graduate
Level Examination 2012. The result was
declared on 8.2.2013 and the authority
concerned
has
already
verified
the
documents and his medical examination
has already been taken place. Therefore,
at this stage, the claim of the petitioner
cannot be denied.
15.
In para-19 of the short counter
affidavit, it is stated that the Commission has
taken a decision to challenge the judgment of
Delhi High Court dated 17.12.2014. This
affidavit was sworn in the month of March,
2015 and considerable time has lapsed in
between. The order dated 17.12.2014 was
passed by the Delhi High Court before
passing of the impugned order dated
13.1.2015. Admittedly, the respondents were
in the knowledge of the order passed by the
Delhi High Court, which has attained finality.
Nothing has been brought on record to
indicate that the respondents have preferred
any Special Leave Petition against the
judgment of Delhi High Court dated
17.12.2014.
16. In view of above, the order
impugned dated 13.1.2015 is violative of
principle of natural justice and is
accordingly set aside.
17.
The writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to issue appointment
letter in favour of the petitioner in pursuance
of his final selection in Combined Graduate
Level Examination-2012 on the post of Tax
Assistant in the office of Commissioner of
Customs (General), New Custom House,
Ballad Estate, Mumbai within a period of
four weeks' from the date of production of a
certified copy of the order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 7401 of 2015
Rajendra Patel
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents