{"id":86979,"date":"2005-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2"},"modified":"2016-03-26T20:10:53","modified_gmt":"2016-03-26T14:40:53","slug":"pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2","title":{"rendered":"Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2005 (2) ESC 809<\/div>\n
Author: 5 S 377J.<\/div>\n
Bench: B Chauhan, D Gupta<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1. This case is an eye-opener as to what extent a litigant
\ncan have the audacity to misuse and abuse the process of the Court. One of the
\npetitioners, whose appointment itself stood cancelled by operation of law is
\nnot only in service but had succeeded In joining a college of his choice,
\nthough the vacancy of his subject had never occurred therein, only by playing
\nfraud upon the Court.\n<\/p>\n
2. Petitioners stood selected for appointment as Lecturer in Education
\nDepartment by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the ‘Commission’) pursuant to advertisement No. 29. Petition has
\nbeen filed for a direction upon the respondents to consider their claim for
\ninter changing the Colleges where their names have been recommended by the
\nDirector of Education (Higher Education) (hereinafter referred to as the
\n‘Director’).\n<\/p>\n
3. Consequent to the selections made by the Commission on the basis of
\nAdvertisement No. 29 issued by it for filling up the posts of Lecturers in the
\nColleges in various subjects, a list dated 7.7.2001 was sent by the Commission
\nto the Director recommending the names of 121 candidates found most suitable
\nfor the post of Lecturer in B.Ed. The Director intimated the managements of the
\nrespective Colleges the names of the candidates for. being appointed. Amongst
\nothers, the name of Pradeep Kumar Arora, petitioner No. 1, was intimated to the
\nmanagement of Vardhman College, Bijnor whereas the name of Dr, Kailash Nath
\nGupta, petitioner No. 2, was intimated to the management of Nanakchand Anglo
\nSanskrit College, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as ‘NAS College’ Meerut).
\nInstead of joining at their respective Colleges, both the petitioners moved
\napplications before the Director for inter changing their placement. The
\nDirector, however, did not accede to the request and proceeded to place another
\ncandidate Harendra Kumar at the NAS College, Meerut. It is In these
\ncircumstances that the present petition was filed in the Court for the relief
\nmentioned above and when the matter was taken up on 24.4.2002 time was granted
\nto the respondents to file a counter-affidavit and notices were issued to
\nrespondent Nos. 3 and 4 which are the Committee of Managements of the aforesaid
\ntwo Colleges; The Court further Ordered that in the meantime petitioners may
\ninter change their postings i.e. petitioner No. 1 was permitted to join as
\nLecturer in B.Ed. In NAS College, Meerut while petitioner No. 2 to join as
\nLecturer in Vardhman College, Bijnor.\n<\/p>\n
4. The records reveal that on the basis, of the aforesaid interim Order
\npetitioner No. 1 joined the NAS College, Meerut but petitioner No. 2 did not
\njoin the Vardhman College, Bijnor till date.\n<\/p>\n
5. On 22.5.2002, one Ompal Singh filed an application for impleadment as a
\nrespondent in the writ petition and for recalling the Order dated 24.4.2002.
\nThe said application was allowed impleading him as respondent No. 5. In the
\naffidavit filed in support of the impleadment application, It was stated that
\nthe petitioner No. 2 Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta had not joined the intimated place
\nof posting at NAS College, Meerut and, therefore, his placement Order was
\ncancelled and thereafter the communication dated 24.1.2002 was sent by the
\nDirector to the NAS College, Meerut intimating the name of one Harendra Kumar
\nfor appointment. The applicant (Ompal Singh) had earlier filed a Writ Petition
\nNo. 14938 of 2002 in, this Court for quashing the aforesaid placement Order of
\nHarendra Kumar and for a direction to place the applicant at the said NAS
\nCollege, Meerut. On 12.4.2002 the Court passed the following Order on the
\napplication for interim relief:\n<\/p>\n
“It has been averred in writ petition that petitioner is M.A. in
\nMathematics and M.Ed, as also Gold Medallist in M. Phil.\n<\/p>\n
The advertisement was made for Nanak Chand Anglo Sanskrit College Meerut for
\nthe post of Lecturer having qualification B.Ed.\/Mathematics. The petitioner is
\nspecialised in Mathematics whereas Harendra Kumar respondent No. 5 is M.A. in
\nHistory and prima facie is not eligible.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the averments in the writ petition particularly the fact that
\nrespondent No. 5 is allegedly not qualified for appointment on the said post we
\nstay the impugned Order dated 24.1.2002 (Annexure-1 to the Supplementary
\nAffidavit).\n<\/p>\n
However it is clarified that if respondent No. 5 has a degree in M.A.
\nMathematics then this interim Order will be inoperative.”\n<\/p>\n
6. It was also stated that Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta had earlier been selected
\nby the Commission pursuant to advertisement No. 28 and consequent to the
\nintimation sent by the Director he had been appointed as a Lecturer in B.Ed. In
\nMaltari College, Azamgarh. However, Dr. Gupta had concealed material facts from
\nthis Court and obtained an interim Order dated ‘24.4.2002.\n<\/p>\n
7. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners to the
\naforesaid impleadment application wherein it was admitted that petitioner No. 2
\nDr. Kailash Nath Gupta was working at Maltari College, Azamgarh in view of his
\nselection on the basis of Advertisement No. 28 and on the basis of the interim
\nOrder dated 24.4.2002, he could not join the Vardhman College, Bijnor as he did
\nnot receive any information about his placement. However, petitioner No. 1,
\nPradeep . Kumar Arora joined at the NAS College, Meerut pursuant to the interim
\nOrder dated 24.4.2002 and was teaching there. In the rejoinder affidavit to the
\naforesaid impleadment application Ompal Singh has brought on record the communication
\ndated 31.1.2002 sent by the NAS College, Meerut to the Director wherein reasons
\nhave been given as to why Harendra Kumar was not permitted to join in spite of
\nthe intimation dated 24.1.2002 sent by the Director to the said College. It has
\nfurther been stated that an appointment letter had been issued to Dr. Kailash
\nNath Gupta by the NAS College, Meerut but since he did not join the College,
\nthe Director intimated the name of Harendra Kumar to the said College for
\nappointment as a Lecturer.\n<\/p>\n
8. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the
\nDirector. It has been stated that regular selection and appointment for the
\npost of Lecturer in aided non-Government Degree and Post Graduate Colleges are
\ngoverned by the provisions of the U.P, Higher Education Services Commission
\nAct, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’); under the second proviso to
\nSection 12(4) of the Act, the candidates are required to Indicate their Order
\nof preference for various Colleges in respect of which the vacancies had been
\nadvertised and under Section 13(3) of the Act, the Director having due regard
\nto the Order of preference indicated by the candidates, Intimates to the
\nManagement the name of a candidate from the list sent by the Commission for
\nbeing appointed; that many candidates indicate their preference for the same
\nCollege and, therefore, the placement Order is issued by the Director looking
\nto the merit and the roster while taking care that only female selected
\ncandidates are placed in Girls’ Colleges as a result of which the claim of male
\ncandidates higher in Order of merit has to be ignored; the Director also has to
\nlook into the specific demands made by the Colleges in respect of specialised
\nfield and it was on a consideration of the relevant factors that the Director
\nhad made the placement Order of Pradeep Kumar Arora, petitioner No. 1 at
\nVardhman College, Bijnor since the requirement of this College was for a
\nLecturer in B.Ed, specialising In Commerce and of Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta,
\npetitioner No. 2 at NAS College, Meerut where the demand was for a Lecturer in
\nB.Ed, specialising in Mathematics. It was, therefore, submitted that if such
\nexchanges are permitted then it would not only be against the requirements of
\nthe College but would also ignore the claims of other successful candidates. It
\nhas further been stated that the name of petitioner No. 2, Dr. Kailash Nath
\nGupta was wrongly included in the list of general category candidates sent by
\nthe Commission on 7.7.2001 and subsequently the Commission informed the
\nDirector that the petitioner No. 2, Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta had been placed at
\nSerial No. 2 in the list of OBC category candidates.\n<\/p>\n
9. On 13.5.2003, when the matter was taken up by the Court, the following
\nOrder was passed:\n<\/p>\n
 “The petitioner No. 2 has sworn affidavit on personal knowledge and
\nmade false averments in para 32 of the writ petition. He is directed to remain
\npresent before this Court on 22.5.2003 at 2.00 p.m. to explain under what
\ncircumstances he has made factual averments in para 32 that the vacancy of
\ncommerce has ever been advertised in NAS College Meerut and how he has verified
\nthis fact on personal knowledge in his affidavit. He is directed to file
\naffidavit explaining his conduct why he should not be dealt with criminal
\ncontempt. List this petition for further hearing on 22.5.2003 at 2.00
\np.m.”\n<\/p>\n
10. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, an application duly supported by
\nan affidavit of Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta. An attempt was made to explain the
\nfacts mentioned in paragraph 32 of the petition by stating that the averments
\nhad been made on the basis of the report of the Committee of Management of the
\nNAS College, Meerut rather than on the basis of the advertisement and an
\nunconditional apology was submitted.\n<\/p>\n
11. The matter was heard by us at length on 19.1.2005 and the following
\nOrder was passed :\n<\/p>\n
“Judgment reserved. Sri Kailash Nath Gupta, petitioner No. 2 is
\ndirected to file his affidavit as under what circumstances he had made
\naverments in paragraph 32 of the petition regarding placement of Harendra
\nKumar, and as to whether he was aware of the cancellation of his placement in
\nN.A.S. College, Meerut. Affidavit be filed within ten days from today.\n<\/p>\n
Director of Higher Education is directed to transmit the original record of
\nthe appointment\/ placement of Lecturer in Education Department in N.A.S. College,
\nMeerut as well as Vardhman College, Bijnor along with the Order cancelling the
\nplacement of Shri Kailash Nath Gupta in N.A.S. College, Meerut and the
\napplication sent by the Committee of Management of that College for the
\ncancellation of his placement for not joining within time.\n<\/p>\n
The record may be transmitted forthwith and in any case not later than one
\nweek from today.\n<\/p>\n
Copy of this Order may be given to the learned Chief Standing Counsel S.M.A.
\nKazmi by tomorrow.”\n<\/p>\n
12. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by us, a supplementary
\naffidavit has been filed by the petitioners and the records have also been
\nproduced by Director of Education. In the supplementary affidavit it has been
\nstated that petitioner No. 2 was never communicated any Order of cancellation
\nof his placement at the NAS College, Meerut by the State-respondent. The
\nsupplementary affidavit has however very conveniently omitted to explain as to
\non what basis the petitioners had made the averment in paragraph 32 of the
\npetition regarding the placement of Harendra Kumar at the NAS College, Meerut,
\nif they were not aware of the letter dated 24.1.2002.\n<\/p>\n
13. We have heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the
\npetitioners, assisted by Sri Shailendra and the learned Standing Counsel appearing
\non behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri W.H. Khan, learned Counsel
\nappearing for the Committee of Management of the NAS College, Meerut and Sri
\nUpendra Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondent
\nOmpal Singh.\n<\/p>\n
14. Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted
\nthat it was obligatory on the part of the Director to have considered the
\napplications submitted by the petitioners for inter changing their place of
\npostings since there were so many cases in which the Director permitted such
\nmutual exchange of placement; the Director was not justified in adjusting
\nHarendra Kumar who belongs to the Other Backward Category and who was at Serial
\nNo. 1 in the said category and had been placed at Vardhman College, Bijnor; and
\nthat Harendra Kumar belongs to History subject whereas no such post was
\navailable at NAS College, Meerut.\n<\/p>\n
15. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Upendra Singh,
\nlearned Counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondent No. 5 opposed the
\ngrant of any relief since that would not only be against the provisions of the
\nAct and the Rules framed thereunder but the petitioners had also concealed
\nmaterial facts from this Court and in support of their contentions the learned
\nCounsel relied upon the averments made in the affidavits filed by them.\n<\/p>\n
16. In Order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present petition,
\nit would be necessary to refer to the provisions of the Act and the provisions
\nof the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Rules, 1981
\n(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) and the provisions of the Uttar
\nPradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of
\nTeachers) Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’).
\nPrior to the commencement of the Act, the appointment to the post of teachers
\nin the Non-Governmental Colleges affiliated to the various Universities in the
\nState was made by the Selection Committee of the Management of the College
\nconcerned. For various reasons the said process was not found to be congenial
\nand so the aforesaid Act, was enacted. Sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act
\nwhich are relevant for the purposes of the controversy involved in the petition
\nare quoted below :\n<\/p>\n
“12. Procedure for appointment of teachers. — (1) Every appointment as
\na teacher of any College shall be made by the management in accordance with the
\nprovisions of this Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof
\nshall be void.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The management shall intimate the existing vacancies and the vacancies,
\nlikely to be caused during the course of the ensuing academic year, to the
\nDirector at such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The Director shall notify to the Commission at such time and in such
\nmanner as may be prescribed a subject-wise consolidated list of vacancies
\nintimated to him from all Colleges.\n<\/p>\n
(4) The manner of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of
\nteachers of a College shall . be such, as may be determined by regulations :
\nProvided further that the candidates shall be required to indicate their Order
\nof preference for the various Colleges, vacancies wherein have been advertised.\n<\/p>\n
13. Recommendation of Commission. –(1) The Commission, shall as soon as
\npossible, after the notification of vacancies to it under sub-Section (3) of
\nSection 12, hold interview (with or without written examination) of the
\ncandidates and send to the Director a list recommending such number of names of
\ncandidates found most suitable in each subject as may be, so far as
\npracticable, twenty five per cent more than the number of vacancies in that
\nsubject. Such names shall be arranged in Order of merit shown in the interview,
\nor in the examination and interview if an examination is held.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The list sent by the Commission shall be valid till the receipt of a new list from the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The Director shall having due regard in the prescribed manner, to the Order of preference if any indicated by
\nthe candidates under the second proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 12, intimate to the management the name
\nof a candidate from the list referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 12.\n<\/p>\n
(6) The Director shall send a copy of the intimation made under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) or Sub-section (5) to the candidate concerned.\n<\/p>\n
14. Duty of Management–(I) The management shall within a period of one month from the date of receipt of intimation under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) or Sub-section (5) of Section 13, issue appointment letter to the person whose name has been intimated.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Where the person referred to in Sub-section (1) Jails to join the post within the time allowed in the
\nappointment letter or within such extended time as the management may allow in this behalf, or where such person is otherwise not available for appointment,
\nthe Director, shall on the request of the management intimate fresh name from the list sent by the Commission under Sub-section (1) of Section 13 in the
\nmanner prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
15. Inquiry by Director.–(1) Where any person is entitled to be appointed
\nas a teacher in any College in accordance with Sections 12 to 14, but he is not
\nso appointed by the management within the time provided therefore, he may apply
\nto the Director for a direction under Sub-section (2).\n<\/p>\n
(2) On receipt of an application
\nunder Sub-section (1), the Director may hold an Inquiry, and if he is satisfied
\nthat the management has failed to appoint the applicant as a teacher in
\ncontravention of the provisions of this Act. he may by Order, require–\n<\/p>\n
(a) the management to appoint the
\napplicant as a teacher, and to pay him salary from the date specified in the
\nOrder; and<\/p>\n
(b) the Principal of the College concerned to take work from him as a teacher.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The amount of salary, if any,
\ndue to such teacher shall, on a certificate issued by the Director, be
\nrecoverable by the Collector as arrears of land revenue.”\n<\/p>\n
17. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act Indicates that every appointment of a teacher
\nin a College has to be made by the Management in accordance with the provisions of
\nthe Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void. The
\nManagement has to intimate the existing vacancies and the vacancies likely to
\nbe caused during the course of the ensuing academic year to the Director in the
\nprescribed manner who shall. then notify to the Commission a subject wise
\nconsolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all Colleges. Thereafter
\nthe Commission shall give wide publication In the State to the vacancies and
\nthe candidates shall be required to indicate their Order of preference for the
\nvarious Colleges. Under Section 13 (1) of the Act, the Commission shall hold
\ninterview of the candidates and send to the Director a list recommending such
\nnumber of names of candidates found most suitable in subject and such names
\nshall be arranged in Order of merit. This list sent by the Commission shall be
\nvalid till the receipt of a new list from the Commission. Under Section 13 (3)
\nof the Act the Director shall, having due regard to the Order of preference
\nindicated by the candidates, intimate to the Management the name of a candidate
\nfrom the list sent by the Director for being appointed. Under Section 13 (6) of
\nthe Act, the Director shall also send a copy of the Intimation to the candidate
\nconcerned. Section 14 of the Act prescribes that it is the duty of the
\nmanagement to issue appointment letter to the person whose name has been
\nintimated within a period of one month but where the person fails to join the
\npost within the time allowed in the appointment letter, the Director shall
\nintimate a fresh name from the list sent by the Commission. Under Section 15 of
\nthe Act, if the person is not appointed by the management then he may apply to
\nthe Director for directions and under Section 15 (2) of the Act, the Director,
\nafter holding an enquiry, may require the management to appoint the person and
\nthe Principal concerned to take work from him. Rule 7 of the Rules provides
\nthat the management of the College has to intimate the number of vacancies to
\nbe filled in by recruitment during the course of the year by 31st May in Form I
\nand under Rule 11 the candidate recommended by the Commission for appointment
\nmay intimate to the Director his non-appointment by the management in Form II.
\nThe Regulations provide that the minimum qualification for appointment of a
\nteacher shall be as given in the Statutes of the Universities and they also
\nprovide for a detailed procedure regarding the termination and intimation of
\nvacancies, notification of vacancies, submission of application and indication
\nof preference and the procedure for selection and recommendation for
\nappointment and the notification of names of selected candidates.\n<\/p>\n
18. Now coming to the facts of the instant case, we find that both the petitioners had submitted applications
\nbefore the Commission for being considered for appointment as Lecturers in
\nB.Ed, pursuant to the Advertisement No. 29. The Commission had sent a list
\ndated 7.7.2001 containing the names of the Lecturers in B.Ed, for the Graduate
\nand Post Graduate Colleges in respect of the vacancies advertised for 121 posts
\nwhich included 61 general category posts, 33 OBC category, 25 Scheduled Caste
\ncategory and 2 Scheduled Tribe category. The name of petitioner No. 1, Pradeep
\nKumar Arora was indicated at Serial No. 42 In the list of general category
\ncandidates while- the name of Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta, petitioner No. 2 was
\nindicated at Serial No. 55 in the list of general category candidates. However,
\nagainst the name of petitioner No. 2 OBC was mentioned. In paragraph 18 of the
\ncounter affidavit filed on behalf of the Director, it has also been stated that
\nsubsequently the Commission Informed the Director that petitioner No. 2,
\nnamely, Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta should be placed at Serial No. 2 in the list of
\nOBC category candidates. In the aforesaid list dated 7.7.2001 the name of
\nHarendra Kumar has been placed at Serial No. 1 in the list of OBC category
\ncandidates while the name of Ompal Singh is at Serial No. 2 in the said
\ncategory. Under Section 13 (3) of the Act, the Director by means of the
\ncommunication dated 22.12.2001 intimated the management of Vardhman College,
\nBijnor the name of petitioner No. 1, Pradeep Kumar Arora for appointment as a
\nLecturer in B.Ed, and the management was directed to issue the appointment
\nletter giving 21 days time to the candidate to join. A copy of the letter was
\nalso endorsed to the Principal of the College and to the candidate concerned
\nnamely Sri Pradeep Kumar Arora with the remark that he should contact the
\nmanagement and join the post at the earliest and intimate the said fact to the
\nDirector. It was also specifically mentioned that if he failed to join the post
\non the basis of the letter issued by the management of the College then it will
\nbe presumed that he was not desirous of Joining the College. and in such
\ncircumstances his name will not be considered in any other College and the
\nappointment shall automatically stand cancelled. Likewise, the Director also
\nsent a communication dated 23.10.2001 to the management of NAS College, Meerut
\nintimating the name of petitioner No. 2, Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta for appointment
\nas a Lecturer in B.Ed, in the College. A copy of the letter also endorsed to
\npetitioner No. 2 with the same remark. Both the petitioners did not desire to
\njoin the place of postings indicated in the aforesaid communications sent by
\nthe Director and, therefore, moved applications for Inter changing their place
\nof postings.\n<\/p>\n
19. What, therefore, emerges is
\nthat in the communications dated 22nd December, 2001 and 23rd October, 2001
\nsent to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively for their placements at the
\nColleges it was clearly mentioned that they should immediately intimate the
\nDirector about their joining at the respective Colleges and should they fail to
\njoin within the time stipulated by the management of the Colleges it will be
\npresumed that they were not interested in joining so that their appointments
\nshall automatically stand cancelled and they will also not be considered for
\nplacement in any other College. The petitioners have not brought on record the
\nletters issued by the management of the two Colleges and it is also not their
\ncase that such letters were not issued. However, In the letter issued by the
\nDirector, the managements were required to give not more than 21 days time to
\nthe candidates to join the College. There Is nothing on the record to show that
\nthe petitioners had ever sought extension of time either from the Director or
\nthe management of the Colleges, The petitioners had admittedly not joined the
\nColleges. and therefore their appointments stood cancelled and they could not
\nbe considered for appointment in any other College in view of the specific
\nstipulation to this effect contained in the aforesaid letters. There was no
\nrequirement at all for the Director or the management of the College to
\nintimate the candidates about cancellation of their appointments since it
\nautomatically stood cancelled on the failure to Join the College within the
\nstipulated time. Thus, the appointments of the petitioners stood automatically
\ncancelled much prior to the filing of this petition on 22nd April, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
20. Equally disturbing is the
\nfact that In the entire petition it has not been stated that petitioner No. 2
\nDr. Kailash Nath Gupta was already working as a Lecturer in B.Ed, in Maltari
\nCollege, Azamgarh pursuant to the selection made by the Commission earlier on
\nthe basis of Advertisement No. 28 and the fact that since petitioner No. 2 had
\nnot joined the College within the time stipulated in the letter, the Director
\nhad sent the communication dated 24.1.2002 to the NAS College, Meerut
\nIntimating the name of Harendra Kumar for being given an appointment as a
\nLecturer in B.Ed. In the petition, which was filed on 24.4.2002, it was merely
\nmentioned that the Director was ‘making’ an effort to issue the placement
\nOrder in favour of one Harendra Kumar OBC candidate” and that Harendra
\nKumar should not be sent to NAS College, Meerut since he was specialising in
\nHistory whereas there was no requirement for History in the College. Harendra
\nKumar has, however, not been impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition
\neven though his placement In NAS College, Meerut was sought to be challenged.\n<\/p>\n
21. From the facts stated above
\nit transpires that as petitioner No. 2 Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta was already
\nworking as a Lecturer in B.Ed, in Maltari College, Azamgarh, he was not interested
\nat all in joining the NAS College, Meerut but since petitioner No. 1 Pradeep
\nKumar Arora was desirous of joining the NAS College, Meerut he prevailed upon
\nDr. Kailash Nath Gupta to join as a petitioner in the present petition so as to
\nmake out a case of simple inter change of place of postings. We are persuaded
\nto form such an opinion because of the fact that even after the passing of the
\ninterim Order dated 24.4.2002 petitioner No. 2 Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta did not
\nJoin the Vardhman College, Bijnor though petitioner No. 1 Pradeep Kumar Arora
\nimmediately joined the NAS College, Meerut. The contention of Dr. Kailash Nath
\nGupta that he was not issued a letter by the Vardhman College, Bijnor cannot be
\naccepted because there was an interim Order granted in his favour by this Court
\nand nothing has been brought on record to show that he moved any
\napplication\/representation before the said College for appointment or that he
\ncomplained to this Court that the interim Order was not complied with by the
\nVardhman College, Bijnor. Thus, it is amply clear that he had no intention of
\njoining the said College. It was by this oblique method that Dr. Kailash Nath
\nGupta wanted to help petitioner No. 1 in seeking appointment in the NAS
\nCollege, Meerut and in doing so material facts were deliberately concealed from
\nthis Court. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners
\nthat they had no knowledge of the letter dated 24.1.2002 sent by the Director
\nto the NAS College, Meerut because they have clearly stated about Harendra
\nKumar being sent to the NAS College, Meerut and they could have gathered
\ninformation of this fact only through the letter dated 24.1.2002. Even in the
\nsupplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner pursuant to the directions
\nissued by us on 19.1.2005 the petitioners have not explained as to on what
\nbasis they had stated in the petition that the Director was making an effort
\nfor placement of Harendra Kumar at the NAS College, Meerut. Thus neither the
\ncommunication dated 24.1,2002 sent by the Director to the NAS College, Meerut
\nwas placed on record or sought to be quashed and nor was Harendra Kumar
\nimpleaded as a respondent in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
22. We are doubtful whether the
\nCourt could have entertained the writ petition, much less granted interim relief,
\nif these material facts had been brought to its notice. No interim relief at
\nthe initial stage can be granted in the instant case, as the Hon’ble Apex Court
\nhas consistently and persistently held that the Court of law should not pass an
\ninterim Order which amounts to a final relief. [Vide A.P. Christians Medical
\nEducational Society v. Gout, of A.P. and Anr., AIR<\/a> 1986 SC 1490; State of Jammu
\nand Kashmir v. Mohd. Yakoob Khan and Ors.,<\/a> 1992 (4) SCC 167; U.P. Junior
\nDoctors’ Action Committee and Ors. v. Dr. B. Shital Nandwani and Ors.,<\/a> 1992
\nSuppl (1) SCC 680; Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and Anr.,
\nAIR<\/a> 1993 SC 2412; St. John’s Teachers Training Institute (For Women), Maduraf
\nand Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadit and Ors., 1993 (3) SCC 595; Dr. Bharatbhushan
\nSonaji Kshirsagar v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa and Ors., 1995 Suppl (2) SCC 593; Bank of
\nMaharashtra v. Race Shipping and Transport Co. Put. Ltd. and Anr., AIR<\/a> 1995 SC
\n1368; Commissioner\/ Secretary to Government Health and Medical Education
\nDepartment, Civil Secretariat, Jammu v. Dr, Ashok Kumar Kohli,<\/a> 1995 Suppl (4)
\nSCC 214; Union of India v. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. and Anr.,<\/a> 1996
\n(8) SCC 347; State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. M.V. Vyavsaya and Co., AIR<\/a>
\n1997 SC 993; and Central Board of Secondary Education v. P. Sunil Kumar, (1998)
\n5 SCC 377J.\n<\/p>\n
23. The logic behind this remains
\nthat the ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing
\nthe judicial discretion to the criticism of private benevolence and the Court
\nshould not be guided by misplaced sympathy, but should pass interim Orders
\nmaking accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. The Court
\nshould not embarrass the authorities under the Statute by taking over the
\nfunctions to be performed by them.\n<\/p>\n
24. In Union of India v. Era Educational Trust and Anr.,<\/a> (2000) 5 SCC 57, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after
\nconsidering its large number of Judgments held that while passing interim Order
\nin exercise of writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
\nprinciples laid down for granting Interim relief under Order XXXIX of Code of
\nCivil Procedure, 1908 should be kept in mind. It can neither be issued as a
\nmatter of right nor it should be in the form which can be granted only as final
\nrelief.\n<\/p>\n
25. In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund
\nv. Kartick Das,<\/a> (1994) 4 SCC 225, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that ex-parte
\nInjunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors
\nwhich should weigh for grant of injunction are – (a) whether irreparable or
\nserious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff; (b) whether the refusal of
\nex-parte injunction would involve greater injustice than grant of it would
\ninvolve; (c) even if ex-parte injunction should be granted, it should only be
\nfor limited period of time; and (d) general principles like prima facie case,
\nbalance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
26. In Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and
\nOrs. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar and Anr., AIR<\/a> 1995 SC 1499, the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt deprecated the practice of grant of interim relief which amounts to final
\nrelief, observing that High Court should exercise its discretion, while
\ngranting interim relief, reasonably and judiciously and, if loss can be
\nrepairable or the loss can be satisfied by giving back wages etc., no interim
\nOrder should be granted. Hon’ble Apex Court further observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “It should be granted only
\nin exceptional circumstances where the damage cannot be repaired, for the
\nreason that if no relief for continuance in service is granted and ultimately
\nhis claim….is found to be acceptable, the damage can be repaired by granting
\nhim all those monetary benefits which he would have received and he continued
\nin service. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in such cases it would be
\nimprudent to grant interim relief.”\n<\/p>\n
27. Similar view has been
\nreiterated in Council for Indian School Certificate Examination v. Isha Mittal
\nand Anr.,<\/a> (200O) 7 SCC 521.\n<\/p>\n
28. In State of U.P. and Ors. v.\n<\/p>\n
Modem Transport Company, Ludhiana and Anr., JT (2OO2) 1 SC 425, the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court deprecated the practice of granting interim relief wherein the
\nparty could be compensated at the time of disposal of the writ petition. The
\nHon’ble Apex Court observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “It is unfortunate that the
\nHigh Court has given no reason whatsoever in support of its Order. It is
\nexpected that when interim Orders are passed which, in effect, results in the
\nwrit petition itself being allowed, the High Court must give reasons in support
\nthereof.”\n<\/p>\n
29. In Union of India and Ors. v.\n<\/p>\n
Modiluft Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2218, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while making the
\nsimilar observations held that an interim Order passed in equity must be one
\nwhich Is equitable to all the parties concerned and it must meet ingredients of
\nOrder XXXIX, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
30. Similar view has been
\nreiterated in State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta,<\/a> (2000) 10 SCC 311; and Regional
\nOfficer, CBSE v. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Ors.,<\/a> (2003) 7 SCC 719.\n<\/p>\n
31. Thus, in view of the
\naforesaid decisions, no interim relief, which amounts to a final relief, should
\nbe granted at the initial stage.\n<\/p>\n
32. There can be no quarrel to
\nthe legal proposition that no party can suffer by the action of the Court and
\nwhen the High Court in exercising of its powers under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India grants interim relief; the interest of justice requires
\nthat any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the
\njurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised. The institution of litigation by
\na party should not be permitted to confer an unfair advantage on the party
\nresponsible for it. [Vide Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Calcutta
\nand Ors., AIR<\/a> 1980 SC ‘656; Ram Krishna Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and
\nOrs., AIR 1992 SC 1888; State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. M\/s. M.V, Vyavsaya
\nand Co., AIR<\/a> 1997 SC 993; and Smt. Rampati Jaiswal and Ors. v. State of U.P.
\nand Ors., AIR 1997 All 170].\n<\/p>\n
33. No litigant can derive any
\nbenefit from mere pendency of case in a Court of Law, as the interim Order
\nalways merges in the final Order to be passed in the case and if the writ
\npetition is ultimately dismissed, the interim Order stands nullified
\nautomatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs
\nby getting interim Order and thereafter blame the Court. The fact that the writ
\nis found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous writ petition
\nhad been filed. The maxim “Actus curiae neminem gravabit”, which
\nmeans that the act of the Court shall prejudice no-one, becomes applicable in
\nsuch a case. In such a situation the Court is under an obligation to undo the
\nwrong done to a party by the act of the Court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair
\nadvantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be
\nneutralised, as institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any
\nadvantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the Court. [Vide Dr.
\nA.R. Sircar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 734; Shiv
\nShankar and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr.,<\/a> 1995 Suppl (2)
\nSCC 726; Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College, Arya Nagar, Kanpur
\nand Ors. v. Sree Kumar Tiwary and Anr., AIR<\/a> 1997 SC 3071; and GTC industries
\nLtd. v. Union of India and Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 376].\n<\/p>\n
34.. In Kanoria Chemicals and
\nIndustries Ltd. and Ors. v. V.P. State Electricity Board and Ors.,<\/a> (1997) 5 SCC
\n772, the Hon’ble Apex Court approved and followed its earlier judgment in Shree
\nChamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association C.S.I. Cinod
\nSecretariat, Madras,<\/a> (1992) 3 SCC 1, and observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “It is equally well settled
\nthat an Order of stay granted pending disposal of a writ petition\/suit or other
\nproceeding, comes to an end with the dismissal of the substantive proceeding and
\nthat it is the duty of the Court in such a case to put the parties in the same
\nposition they would have been but for the interim Orders of the Court.”\n<\/p>\n
35. The same view has been taken
\nby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Mohanan v. State of Kerala and
\nOrs., AIR<\/a> 1997 SC 1896; and Blleshiuar Khan Uduog Khedut Sahkari Mandalf Ltd.
\nand Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1198, wherein it has been held
\nthat the appointment\/continuation in service by interim Order, does not create
\nany legal right in favour of the appointee. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Raj
\nKaran Singh,<\/a> (1998) 8 SCC 529, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held
\nthat interim Order cannot disturb the position in law and if a person is in
\nservice by virtue of the interim Order of the Court, he cannot agitate the
\nissue that his continuation in service in such a condition has improved his
\nclaim to regularisation.\n<\/p>\n
36. Similar view has been reiterated in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors.,<\/a> (2003) 8
\nSCC 648; and Karnataka Rare Earth and Anr. v. Senior Geologist, Department of
\nMines and Geology and Anr.,<\/a> (20O4) 2 SCC 783.\n<\/p>\n
37. This petition is also liable
\nto be dismissed on the ground of non-impleadment of the necessary party,
\nnamely, Harendra Kumar in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court [Vide
\nPrabodh Verma and Ors. v. State of V.P. and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 167; Ishujar
\nSingh Ajay Kumar and Ors. v. Kuldip Singh and Ors.,<\/a> 1995 (Suppl) 1 SCC 179;
\nBhagujanti and Ors. v. Subordinate Seruices Selection Board, Haryana and Anr.,
\n1995 (Suppl) 2 SCC 663; Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam and Ors.,<\/a> (1996) 5
\nSCC 419 ; J. Jose Dhanapaul v. S. Thomas and Ors.,<\/a> (1996) 3 SCC 587; Arun
\nTiwari and Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Ors., AIR<\/a> 1998 SC 331; Azhar
\nHasan and Ors. v. District Judge, Saharanpur and Ors.,<\/a> (1998) 3 SCC 246 ; Ram
\nSwamp and Ors. v. S.N. Matra and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 738; L. Chandrakishore
\nSingh v. State of Manipur and Ors.,<\/a> (1999) 8 SCC 287; Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani
\nand Ors. v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Ors.,<\/a> (2000) 2 SCC 606 ;
\nNirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and Ors.,<\/a> (2002) 5 SCC 481 ; M.P.
\nRajya Sahkari Bank Mary adit v. Indian Coffee Workers’ Co-operative Society
\nLtd. and Ors., (2OO2) 9 SCC 2O4; and Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Backward
\nClass Bank Employees’ Welfare Association and Ors.,<\/a> (2004) 2 SCC 76).\n<\/p>\n
38. This apart, what has also to
\nbe examined in this petition is whether in law it permissible for two such
\ncandidates whose names have been recommended by the Director for appointment in
\ntwo different Colleges to move an application for inter changing their
\nplacement of postings. This issue has to be examined in the light of the
\nprovisions contained in the Act, the Rules and the Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
39. As stated above, under Section
\n13 (3) of the Act, the Director having due regard to the manner prescribed in
\nthe Rules and the Regulations and the Order of preference Indicated by the
\ncandidates has to intimate the management the name of a candidate for being
\nappointed. It Is in keeping with the said provision that the Director had
\nIntimated the Committee of Managements of the two Colleges the names of Pradeep
\nKumar Arora and Dr. Kallash Nath Gupta for being appointed as Lecturers in
\nB.Ed. The requirements of the Colleges and the merit of the candidates have
\nnecessarily to be taken into consideration. In the counter affidavit filed by
\nthe Director it has clearly been stated that whereas the requirement in NAS
\nCollege, Meerut was for a Lecturer in B.Ed, specialising in Mathematics the requirement
\nat Vardhman College, Bijnor was for a Lecturer in B.Ed, specialising in
\nCommerce. Petitioner No. 1 Pradeep Kumar Arora had to his credit specialisation
\nin Commerce while Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta had to his credit specialisation in
\nMathematics. Thus these two petitioners on their own could not have agreed for
\ninter changing their place of postings. It is for the Director under Section 13
\n(3) of the Act to place a particular person to a particular College looking to
\nthe preference indicated by the person concerned, his merit determined by the
\nCommission and the requirement of the particular College. This being the
\nposition, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners could not have
\nbeen permitted to inter change their place of postings merely because they had
\nno objection or the respective Colleges had no objection.\n<\/p>\n
40. In the case of Km. Ragini
\nSrivastava v. State of UP., 1997 (1) ESC 649 a Division Bench of this Court
\nconsisting of one of us (Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) considered the question whether
\na candidate, whose name had been intimated by the Director to the management of
\na College and who was consequently issued a letter of appointment by the
\nmanagement could prefer not to join the College and then claim appointment to
\nsome other College. The Court held that such a course cannot be adopted by the
\ncandidate. The relevant portions of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the aforesaid
\njudgment are quoted below :\n<\/p>\n
“6. The list sent by him
\nCommission remains valid till the receipt of a new list from the Commission,
\nunder Sub-section (2) of Section 13. This is intended to meet the situation
\nwhere a selected candidate does not Join the post for any reason and also to
\nmeet a contingency specified in Sub-section (4) of Section 13. The process of
\nselection and appointment comes to an end after a candidate has been selected
\nin accordance with the provisions of the Act, and his name has been intimated
\nto the management of a College by the Director, and he has been issued
\nappointment letter, pursuant to such intimation. This process also gets
\nexhausted if after a candidate is selected and his name is intimated by the
\nDirector having due regard to the Order of preference intimated by him
\nfore-stalls his appointment by the management by pleading that it is not
\npossible for him to join the College. Once the appointment process is complete,
\nthere remains no occasion for him to say that on account of his personal
\nproblems he should be appointed to a vacancy for which selection process
\ncontemplated under the Act was not gone through.\n<\/p>\n
7. We are further of the view
\nthat where Sub-section (4) of Section 13 applies to any vacancy, nomination is
\nto be made by the Director of Education from amongst the candidates whose names
\nhave not already been intimated to the management of any College and not from
\namongst those whose names have already been intimated to the management of any
\nCollege having due regard to preference indicated by them. The reason is that
\nthe appointment process comes to a close after selection process contemplated
\nin the Act has been gone through and appointment letter has been issued by the
\nconcerned College pursuant to the recommendation of the Director of Education
\nor whereafter the intimation has been sent by the Director under Section 13 (3)
\nthe candidate frustrates the issue of appointment letter by saying that it is
\nnot possible for him to join the College. Any other view would cause the whole
\nscheme unworkable throwing the cause of higher education is disarry. If a
\ncandidate who having been selected and appointed is to be allowed not to join
\nthe post to which he was appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act
\nto permit him to wait for a vacancy in the College of his choice to arise, that
\nwould amount to total disregard to the interest of the College and the students
\nand the cause of higher education to serve only personal interest of an
\nindividual.”\n<\/p>\n
41. The proposition of law laid
\ndown in the aforesaid decision would apply with equal force in the instant case
\neven though petitioners have claimed appointments in Colleges to the posts
\nwhich have been advertised. In the instant case the petitioners have not come
\nout with the case that the Committee of Managements of the respective Colleges
\ndid not issue them letters of appointment but what they contend is that the
\nplaces of posting should be inter changed. Thus also no relief can be granted
\nto the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
42. The matter can be examined
\nfrom another angle namely, whether it is permissible for teachers to seek
\nmutual transfer once they had been appointed in particular Colleges. There is
\nno provision in the Act, which permits mutual transfers, and this question was
\nalso specifically considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Ajay Kumar v,
\nDirector of Higher Education of U.P., Allahabad and Ors., (1997) 1 UPLBEC 337.
\nThe Full Bench after an elaborate discussion of the provisions of the Act
\ndisagreed with the view earlier taken by the Division Bench of this Court in
\nthe case of Dr. Suman Agarwal v. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission,
\nAllahabad and Ors.,<\/a> 1995 (3) ESC 298, and held that neither the Commission nor
\nthe Director has any power to transfer a teacher from one Degree College to
\nanother. Relevant paragraph Nos. 8 and 10 of the Full Bench decision are quoted
\nbelow :\n<\/p>\n
“8. Analysis of the
\nprovisions of the Act, clearly indicates that power of the Commission is merely
\nto select the most suitable candidates for appointment in vacancies intimated
\nto it under Section 12 and to send to the Director a list containing the names
\nof the selected candidates arranged in Order of merit. After the Commission has
\nsent the list containing the names .of the selected candidates, its function is
\nover. It does not have any power express or implied to appoint a teacher in a
\nCollege or to transfer him from one College to another. Even Section 11, which
\nhas defined the powers and duties of the Commission does not contain any such
\npower. The incidental power referred to In Section 11 (h) is the power which is
\nincidental or conducive to the powers\/functions mentioned in other clauses of
\nthe said Section. It neither expressly nor by necessary implication confers any
\npower on the Commission to appoint a teacher in a College or to transfer him
\nfrom one College to another. After the selected candidate is appointed in a
\nCollege by its management he becomes employee of the College. The law does not
\ngive any power to the Commission or even to the director to Interfere with the
\nworking of the teacher so appointed.\n<\/p>\n
10. Even the Director does not
\nhave any power to transfer a teacher from one College to another. The Director
\nhas very limited powers, functions under . the Commission Act. Sub-Section (3)
\nof Section 12 requires the Director to notify to the Commission subjectwise
\nconsolidated list of vacancies intimated to him under Sub-section (2) of
\nSection 12. After the Director receives the list containing the names of the
\nselected candidates from the Commission he has to intimate the names the
\nselected candidates to the management of the Colleges for appointment in the
\nvacancies intimated under Sub-section (2) of Section 12, It is the management,
\nwhich appoints the teacher, whose name is intimated by the Director. The
\nDirector himself cannot appoint a teacher. If a candidate, whose name is
\nintimated by the Director to the management is not appointed, the Director can
\ntake appropriate action against such management under Section 15.”\n<\/p>\n
43. In this connection it may
\nalso be noticed that there are a large number of Intermediate Colleges in the
\nState which are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education
\nAct, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder and the U.P. Secondary
\nEducation Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982. This Act of 1982
\nalso contains provisions regarding intimation of the vacancies by the College
\nfor selection of suitable candidates, sending of the name of the selected
\ncandidates by the Commission to the appropriate authority and the appointments
\nof the selected candidates by the management of the College. The Supreme Court
\nin the case of Om Prakash Rana v. Swamp Singh Tomar and Ors.. AIR 1986 SC 1672,
\nheld that after the enactment of the Secondary Service Commission Act, 1982 a
\nteacher of an Intermediate College cannot be transferred from one College to
\nanother in spite of the specific provision of transfer contained in the
\nIntermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and the
\nrelevant portion of the judgment is quoted below :\n<\/p>\n
 “The scheme under the
\nEducation Act envisages the appointment of a Principal In relation to a
\nspecific College. The appointment is in relation to that College and to no
\nother. Moreover, different Colleges may be owned by different bodies or
\norganisations so that each Principal serves a different employer. Therefore, on
\nfilling the office of a Principal to a College a new contract of employment
\nwith a particular employer comes into existence. There is no State-level
\nservice to which the Principals are appointed. Had that been so, it would have
\nbeen possible to say that when a Principal is transferred from one College to another
\nno fresh appointment is involved. But when a Principal is appointed in respect
\nof a particular College and is thereafter transferred as a Principal of another
\nCollege it can hardly be doubted that a new appointment comes into existence.
\nAlthough the process of transfer may be governed by considerations and move
\nthrough a machinery different from the considerations governing the appointment
\nof a person ab initio as Principal, the nature of the transaction is the same,
\nnamely, that of appointment, and that is so whether the appointment be through
\ndirect recruitment through promotion from the teaching staff of the same
\ninstitution or by transfer from another institution.”\n<\/p>\n
44. The Act involved in the
\npresent petition contains identical provisions and, therefore, the decision of
\nthe Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Rana (supra), applies to teachers
\nof Degree Colleges also. The U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and
\nSelection Boards Act, has since been amended and under the proviso to Section 16
\na teacher can now be transferred from one institution to another in accordance
\nwith the provisions of Section 16-G. of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
\n1921.\n<\/p>\n
45. The most disquieting feature
\nof this case is still to be dealt with. When a person approaches a Court of
\nEquity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226\/227 of
\nthe Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but
\nalso with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. [Vide Ramjas Foundation
\nand Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR<\/a> 1993 SC 852; K.P. Srinivas v. R.M.
\nPremchand and Ors.,<\/a> (1994) 6 SCC 620], Thus, who seeks equity must do equity.
\nThe legal maxim “Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento
\nEt Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem,” means that it is a law of nature that one
\nshould not be enriched by the loss or injury to another.\n<\/p>\n
46. In Nooruddin v. Dr. K.L.\n<\/p>\n
Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “………Equally, the judicial process should never become an
\ninstrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to
\nsubvert justice.”\n<\/p>\n
47. Similarly, in Ramniklal N.\n<\/p>\n
Bhutta and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1236, the Hon’ble
\nApex Court observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “The power under Article 226 is
\ndiscretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of justice and not
\nmerely on the making out of a legal point….the interest of justice and public
\ninterest coalesce. They are very often one and the same….The Courts have to
\nweight the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the
\npower under Article 226….Indeed any of their discretionary powers.”\n<\/p>\n
48. In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao
\nv. K. Parasaran and Ors., AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 2687, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
\nobserved as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “No litigant has a right to
\nunlimited drought on the Court time and public money in Order to get his
\naffairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy, access to justice should not be
\nmisused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.”\n<\/p>\n
49. Similar view has been
\nreiterated by the Supreme Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and Ors.,<\/a> (1998) 3
\nSCC 573.\n<\/p>\n
50. In Trilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR<\/a> 1970 SC 898; State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery, AIR<\/a> 1977 SC 781; and Sabia Khan and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,<\/a> (1999) 1 SCC 271, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts
\nto abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be
\ndealt with lightly, as petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement,
\nif filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
51. In Agriculture and Process
\nFood Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 1947, the Apex Court had taken
\na serious objection In a case filed by suppressing the material facts and held
\nthat if a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact and his
\ncase cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make
\n“full and true disclosure of facts”. While deciding the said case,
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court had placed reliance upon the judgment in King v.
\nGeneral Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486, wherein It has been observed as under :
\n “Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a Rule nisi
\nor other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in
\nsupport of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts,
\nbut stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the
\nCourt ought, for its own protection and to prevent abuse of its process, to
\nrefuse to proceed any further with the examination of its merits….”\n<\/p>\n
52. In Abdul Rahman v. Prasony
\nBai and Anr.,<\/a> 2003 AIR SCW 14; and S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v.
\nState of Bihar and Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 166, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
\nwhenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is
\nbeing abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and
\nrefuse relief to the party. This Rule has been evolved out of need of the
\nCourts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by deceiving
\nit. However, the suppressed fact must be material one in the sense that, had it
\nnot been suppressed, it would have led any fact on the merit of the case.\n<\/p>\n
53. Principle enshrined in
\nSection 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure should- be applied in such a case
\nas the said provisions provide for compensatory costs in respect of fake or
\nvexatious claim or defence in addition to criminal liability in respect of such
\na false claim or defence. This principle can also be made applicable in case of
\nsuppression of facts. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Anr., AIR<\/a> 1977 SC
\n2421, the Apex Court held that the Court should remind itself of the provisions
\nof Section 35A, C.P.C. and take deterrent action if it is satisfied that the
\nlitigation was inspired by vexation motives. In such a case the lawyer also
\nowes a duty not to present such a case observing as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “We regret the infliction of
\nthe ordeal upon the learned Judge of the High Court by a callous party. We more
\nthan regret the circumstance that the party concerned has been able to prevail
\nupon one lawyer or the other to present to the Court a case which was
\ndisingenuous or worse. It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of
\njustice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing
\nto beguiled by dubious clients. And remembering that an advocate is an officer
\nof justice he owes it to society hot to collaborate in shady actions…….A
\njudge who succumbs to ex parte pressure in unmerited cases helps devalue the
\njudicial process……..”\n<\/p>\n
54. Not only the litigants but
\nalso the counsel for them failed to appreciate as what duties he had towards
\nthe Court in filing a petition. The petition has been filed by the counsel
\nwithout, any sense of responsibility.\n<\/p>\n
55. Legal maxim “Juri Ex
\nInjuria Non Oritur” means that a right cannot arise out of wrong doing,
\nand it becomes applicable in case like this.\n<\/p>\n
56. The facts stated above also
\namply depict that the manner in which the petition has been drafted exposes the
\npetitioners to be prosecuted for criminal Contempt. It is a settled proposition
\nof law that a false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings,
\nintentionally to mislead the Court and obtain a favourable Order, amounts to
\ncriminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. A
\nConstitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naraindas v. Government of
\nMadhya Pradesh and Ors., AIR<\/a> 1974 SC 1252, has held as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “Now there can be no doubt
\nthat if a wrong or misleading statement is deliberately and wilfully made by a
\nparty to a litigation with a view to obtain a favourable Order, it would
\nprejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding, and thus,
\namount to contempt of Court.”\n<\/p>\n
57. In Advocate General, State of
\nBihar v. M\/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Anr., AIR<\/a> 1980 SC 946, the
\nApex Court held that every abuse of the process of the Court does not
\nnecessarily amount to contempt of Court, but a calculated attempt to hamper the
\ndue course of the judicial proceeding or administration of justice shall
\ndefinitely amount to contempt of the Court, and in such a case, punishment to
\nthe contemnor is necessary to prevent the abuse and making a mockery of the
\njudicial process, as it adversely affects the interest of the public in the
\nadministration of justice. The Court further held as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “The public have an
\ninterest, an abiding and a real Interest, and a vital stake in the effective
\nand ordely administration of justice, because, unless justice is so
\nadministered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The
\nCourt has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due
\nadministration of justice, and so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for
\ncontempt of Court, not in Order to protect the dignity of the Court against
\ninsult or injury as the expression ‘contempt of Court’ may seem to suggest,
\nbut, to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration
\nof justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered
\nwith.”\n<\/p>\n
58. In Secretary, Hailakandi Bar
\nAssociation v. State of Assam and Anr., AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 1925, the Apex Court held
\nthat filing inaccurate documents deliberately, with a view to mislead the
\nCourt, amounts to interference with the due course of justice by attempting to
\nobstruct the Court from reaching a correct conclusion, and thus, amounts to
\ncontempt of Court.\n<\/p>\n
59. Similar view has been
\nreiterated by the Apex Court in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors.,<\/a>
\n(1995) 3 SCC 757; and Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora,<\/a> (1996) 6 SCC 14,
\nobserving that deliberate attempt to Impede the administration of justice or
\ninterference or tending to interfere with or obstruct, or tend to obstruct the
\nadministration of justice, in any manner, amounts to criminal contempt.\n<\/p>\n
60. In Afzal and Anr. v. State of
\nHaryana and Ors.,<\/a> (1996) 7 SCC 397; and Mohan Singh v. Late Amar Singh, (1998)
\n6 SCC 686, the Apex Court held that a false and a misleading statement
\ndeliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a
\nfavourable Order, amounts to prejudice or interference with the due course of
\njudicial proceedings, and it will amount to criminal contempt. The Court
\nfurther held that every party is under a legal obligation to make the truthful
\nstatement before the Court, for the reason that causing obstruction in the due
\ncourse of justice “undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled
\nstream of justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one can be
\npermitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity.”\n<\/p>\n
61. Similar view has been
\nreiterated in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and Anr.,<\/a>
\n(1995) 3 SCC 507; and Superintendent of Central Excise and Ors. v. Somabhai
\nRanchhodbhai Patel,<\/a> (2001) 5 SCC 65.\n<\/p>\n
62. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Re:\n<\/p>\n
Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC 619, observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
“”Some members of
\nthe profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice
\nof the profession, as is evident from their absence when the matters are called
\nout, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings, many times even
\nillegible and without personal check and verification, the nonpayment of Court
\nfees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to
\ntake steps to serve the parties, yet al. They do not realise the seriousness of
\nthese acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the Court but
\ndo positive dis-service to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in
\nthe Court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of
\nmatters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system,”\n<\/p>\n
63. In view of the above, we are
\nof the view that the petition has been filed with very vague\/inaccurate
\npleadings, and the petitioners not only filed it to mislead the Court but they
\nalso succeeded in their mission and obtained the desired relief, though it did
\nnot even warrant. Moreso, the petitioner No. 2 even did not join Vardhman College,
\nBijnor in pursuance of the interim Order, obviously, playing fraud upon the
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
64. The present petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the
\nground of deliberate concealment of material facts.\n<\/p>\n
65. We are also not inclined to
\naccept the submissions made on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel appearing
\nfor the petitioners that since in the past the Director had permitted the
\ncandidates to inter change the place of posting, the Director should have
\npassed the Order in their case also. In the first instance, the petitioners
\nhave failed to point out any specific instance when the Director permitted such
\ninter change and secondly this contention was also considered and repelled by
\nthis Court in the case of Km. Ragini Srivastava (supra) and it was held as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
 “The fact that in the past
\nrecommendations were made by the Director for the vacancies which were not
\nnotified and for which stipulated selection process had not been gone through
\nwould not form the ground for our holding that the others who did not get the
\nbenefit of illegal Orders should be extended similar benefits: Article 14 of
\nthe Constitution cannot be extended to legalise the illegal Orders though
\nothers had wrongly got the benefit of such Order. In this view we find support
\nfrom Harped Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, 199S Supp. (4) SCC\n<\/p>\n
706. So, neither petitioner is entitled to relief.”\n<\/p>\n
66. Even if in the past, such an
\ninter-change had been permitted by the Director of Higher Education, it would
\nnot create a right in favour of the petitioners as Article 14 of the
\nConstitution does not envisage a negative equality.\n<\/p>\n
67. Article 14 is not meant to
\nperpetuate an illegality. Therefore, we are not bound to repeat the wrong
\naction done by us earlier. This view stands fortified by the judgments of the
\nHon’ble Apex Court e.g., Snehprabha v. State of U.P. and”; others, AIR 1996
\nSC 540; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Dautot Mal Jain and
\nOrs.,<\/a> (1997) 1 SCC 35; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann,<\/a> (1997) 3
\nSCC 321; and Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services and Ors.,<\/a>
\n(1997) 7 SCC 752.\n<\/p>\n
68. In Finance Commissioner
\n(Revenue) v. Gulab Chandra and Anr., 2001 AIR SCW 4774, the Hon’ble Apex Court
\nrejected the contention that as other similarly situated persons had been
\nretained in . service, the petitioner could not have been discharged during the
\nperiod of probation observing that if no action has been taken in a similar
\nsituation against similarly situated persons, it did not confer any legal right
\nupon the petitioner therein.\n<\/p>\n
69. In Jalandhar improvement
\nTrust v. Sampuran Singh, AIR<\/a> 1999 SC 1347; and Union of India and Ors. v.
\nRakesh Kumar,<\/a> 2001 AIR SCW 1458, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Courts
\ncannot issue a direction that the same mistake be perpetuated on the ground of
\ndiscrimination or hardship.\n<\/p>\n
70. Any action\/Order contrary to
\nlaw does not confer any right upon any person for similar treatment. [Vide
\nState of Punjab and Ors. v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal.<\/a> (1999) 9 SCC 240; Yogesh Kumar
\nand Ors. v . Government of NCT Delhi and Ors.. (2O03) 3 SCC 548; and Union of
\nIndia and Anr. v. International Trading Company and Anr.,<\/a> (2OO3) 5 SCC 437;
\nM\/s. Anand Button Ltd, v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2O05 AIR SCW 67].\n<\/p>\n
71. Even otherwise, Article 14
\nprovides only for positive equality and not negative equality. Article 14 does
\nnot provide for passing wrong Order, if it had been committed by an authority.
\nMoreso, this doctrine does not apply to the Court. Even if, we have passed a
\nwrong Order, we have a right to rectify our mistake, but no litigant has a
\nright to blackmail the Court and therefore, the Court is not bound to pass
\nwrong Order again and again.\n<\/p>\n
72. In view of the aforesaid
\ndiscussion, we reach the following inescapable conclusions :\n<\/p>\n
(I) The petitioners had
\ndeliberately concealed material facts from this Court inasmuch as they did not
\nbring on record the letters issued by the Managements of the two Colleges for
\nappointment pursuant to the intimation sent by the Director under Section 13
\n(3) of the Act and the fact that Dr. Kailash Nath Gupta was already working as
\na Lecturer in the Maltari College, Azamgarh. In terms of the letter sent by the
\nDirector, since the petitioners had failed to join the respective colleges,
\ntheir appointments stood automatically cancelled and thus there could be no
\noccasion for them to claim any relief whatsoever. The fact of cancellation of
\ntheir placement was concealed.\n<\/p>\n
(II) Petitioner No. 2 who was
\nalready working at Maltari College, Azamgarh had no intention of joining the
\nVardhman College, Bijnor since even after obtaining the interim Order from this
\nCourt, which permitted him to join the said College, he made no efforts to Join
\nand, therefore, it is clear that the petitioners had played fraud upon this
\nCourt by making out a simple case of inter change of the Colleges whereas in
\nfact it was not so and petitioner No. 2 by this oblique method wanted to help
\npetitioner No. 1, as he Is still working in Azamgarh College.\n<\/p>\n
(III) Petitioners purposely and
\nknowingly did not disclose that by virtue of their posting, the purpose of
\nfilling up the vacancy in a particular subject would stand frustrated, and this
\nway where there was a requirement of a Maths Teacher, a Commerce Teacher has
\nbeen appointed.\n<\/p>\n
(IV) The petitioners have not
\nimpleaded Harendra Kumar who was a necessary party since his appointment was
\nsought to be quashed- Neither the letter dated 24.1.2002 sent by the Director
\nwas annexed to the writ petition nor any relief was claimed to quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
(V) Even otherwise such an inter change is not possible under the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
(IV) The contention of the
\npetitioners that such an inter change should be permitted since the Director in
\nthe past had granted permission cannot be accepted since the petitioners have
\nnot pointed out a single instance when the Director granted permission. Such a
\ncontention cannot be accepted for want of any provision in the Statute
\npermitting such a interchange.\n<\/p>\n
73. There is, therefore, no merit
\nin any of the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
\npetitioners and the petition is liable to be dismissed. As the appointment of
\nthe petitioner No. 1 stood cancelled by operation of law, he cannot claim the
\nplacement in any other College. We also consider it appropriate to impose the
\ncost upon each of the petitioners to the extent of Rs. 10,000\/- (Rupees ten.
\nthousand only). The said amount shall be realised by the Collectors of the
\nrespective Districts as arrears of land revenue within a period of four weeks
\nfrom the date of filing a certified copy of this Order before him. The cost
\nrealised shall be transmitted to the Legal Services Committee, Allahabad High
\nCourt, Allahabad.\n<\/p>\n
74. The copies of the Judgment
\nmay be sent to respective District Collectors of District Meerut as well as
\nAzamgarh, to make the recovery from the petitioners of the aforesaid amount,<\/p>\n
75. The writ petition is
\naccordingly dismissed and the interim Order dated 24th April, 2002 is vacated.\n<\/p>\n
76. The petitioners had
\ndeliberately concealed material facts from the Court and succeeded in getting
\nthe interim relief. We are of the opinion that if correct facts had been
\nbrought to the notice of the Court, the petition itself could not have been
\nentertained, much less the grant of any interim Order in their favour. It is,
\ntherefore, a fit case, where the fact-situation demands initiation of
\nproceedings for criminal contempt.\n<\/p>\n
77. The criminal contempt can be
\ndealt with only by the Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice or a
\nBench nominated by His Lordship [Vide Prof. Y.C. Simhadri and Ors. v. Deen
\nBandhu Pathak. (2001) 4 ESC 1515]. Today, this Bench has the jurisdiction to
\ndeal with the criminal contempt and contempt appeal. We initiate the
\nproceedings for committing criminal contempt of this Court and for that
\npurpose, we frame the following charges:\n<\/p>\n
That you, Pradeep Kumar Arora and
\nDr. Kailash Nath Gupta filed the writ petition giving an impression that there
\nwas no requirement of any specialisation in a particular subject while making
\nthe appointment in Education Department; you concealed, knowingly and
\npurposely, the fact that none of you had joined in the College of your
\nplacement by the Director of Higher Education nor you have stated that you had
\napproached the Committee of Management of the respective institutions where you
\nhad been given the placement by the Director of Higher Education and the
\nCommittee of Management did not issue the appointment letters; you did not
\ndisclose that your appointment itself came to an end by operation of law as
\nwell as in terms of your placement Order as you failed to join the respective
\nCollege of your placement within the stipulated period; and by suppressing
\nthese facts, you succeeded in obtaining interim Order; though petitioner No, 1
\njoined but petitioner No. 2 did not join at the College in Bijnor in view of
\nthe interim Order of this Court dated 24.4.2002, thus, played fraud upon the
\nCourt in Order to get the placement of petitioner No. 1 in NAS College, Meerut
\nas the petitioner No. 2 is still working in Azamgarh.\n<\/p>\n
78. We are of the view that your conduct amounts to criminal contempt. Thus, you are directed to show cause as
\nto why you should not be punished for committing the criminal contempt in view
\nof the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the
\nprovisions of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, within a period
\nof three weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
List the matter on 25th February, 2005 and on that date, both petitioners are directed to remain present in the
\nCourt.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005 Equivalent citations: 2005 (2) ESC 809 Author: 5 S 377J. Bench: B Chauhan, D Gupta JUDGMENT 1. This case is an eye-opener as to what extent a litigant can have the audacity to misuse and abuse the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86979","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-26T14:40:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"58 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T14:40:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2\"},\"wordCount\":11700,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2\",\"name\":\"Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T14:40:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-26T14:40:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"58 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005","datePublished":"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T14:40:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2"},"wordCount":11700,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2","name":"Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T14:40:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pradeep-kumar-arora-and-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-2-february-2005-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pradeep Kumar Arora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 2 February, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86979","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86979"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86979\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}