Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Secy. U.P. Police/pac Selection Board, Police H.Q. & Ors. v. Vinesh Kumar And Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 757 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1537 (23 June 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.10.

Special Appeal No.757 of 2005

Secretary, U.P. Police/PAC

Selection Board. Versus  Vinesh Kumar and others        


Special Appeal No.764 of 2005

Rajendra Prasad Mishra

and others.       Versus Vinesh Kumar and others.


Special Appeal No.756 of 2005

State of U.P. and others Versus Amit Kumar Shukla and    



Special Appeal NO. 758 of 2005

State of U.P. and others Versus Arun Kumar and another.


   For Appellants......Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate,

                                                                             Assisted by Gaurav Bhatia          

                                                                             alongwith Sudhir Agarwal Addl.

                                                                             Advocate General assisted by                      

                                                                             V.K.Rai, Advocate

                                                                             Sri N.K.Seth, Advocate

                                                For Respondents..Sri P.S.Baghel, Advocate

                                                                             Sri P.N.Ojha, Advocate


Hon'ble A. K. Yog, J.

Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.

(Delivered by Hon. A.K.Yog,J.)

The appellants, who are State Authorities and some of the selected candidates for the post of Constable in the police department of the State Government of U.P. have filed these intra Court Special Appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5, Rules of Court.  

To appreciate the controversy, it may be stated that some persons, who had applied in pursuance to an advertisement made in a Newspaper inviting applications for recruitment of 4453 candidates in 15 Districts in the State of U.P., but not successful in the selection, filed several writ petitions which came up for hearing before this Court ( giving rise to above Special Appeals) .

By means of the impugned interim order dated May 27, 2005, Learned Single Judge has issued several directions and required-Government authorities (appellants before this Court) to comply with the same.

In the impugned order learned single judge observed-

"This Court while examining the matter with regard to some of the districts has prima facie concluded that the selection process has not been fair and apparently much stress has been given to appoint candidates of a particular community/caste. Consequently, the Court is exercising its inherent powers and takes su-moto cognizance with regard to the selection process held in other districts even though no writ petition has been filed before this Court as yet and, that is why, this Court is directing the respondents to supply the details for all the  15 districts in question."

In view of the above observation, Learned Single Judge  issued interim mandamus in following terms-

"Until further orders the entire selection process for the selection on the post of Constables in the 15 districts, namely, Meerut, Moradabad, Budaun, Etah Fatehpur, Mainpuri, Etawah, Jhansi, Allahabad, Sonbhadra, Azamgarh, Ghazipur, Deoria, Gonda and Sitapur shall remain stayed. If appointment letters have  been issued, the candidates shall not be sent for training. In the event, the candidates have been sent for training, the same shall be stopped."

Apart from the above, learned Single Judge has further directed the respondent Government Authorities to intimate all the selected candidates to enable them to contest the matter, if they so want, on the next date fixed.

At the out set, we may record that we are referring to the facts as are borne out from Special Appeal No.757 of 2005, Secretary, U.P. Police /PAC Selection Board Versus Vinesh Kumar and others arising from impugned judgement and order dated 27.5.2005.

We are informed that in other Writ Petitions, giving rise to the other above-noted Special Appeals, learned Single Judge has followed order in terms of the order dated 27.5.2005. Hence these Special Appeals have been clubbed together and decided by means of this order.

Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  petitioners-respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Special Appeals on the ground that impugned order is not a 'judgement' in as much as by means of the said order Learned Single Judge has not decided any rights of the parties.  

Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, submitted that the impugned judgement and order dated 27.5.2005 challenged in these Special Appeals have trappings of a judgement in as much the learned Single judge has, though as an interim measure, stayed the selection process and appointment which amounts to adjudication though as a step in aid of final judgement According to the appellants impugned order temporarily eclipses their right/privilege of continuing of selection process and consequential training and appointment.

The reading of the impugned order itself shows that by means of the impugned order respondents have been restrained from sending selected candidates for training and from issuing appointment letters.  It  certainly prejudices valuable rights of the selected candidates, even though for the time being till final decision of the Writ-Petitions. The respondent-authorities, have a right to fill up the posts and selection process need not be interfered unless selection is finally found to be vitiated.  

Accordingly, we hold that Special Appeal is maintainable.

On merit, Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate submitted that learned Single Judge should not have heard the matter in view of the fact that with respect to the districts Sitapur and Gonda  two  writ petitions No. 5059 of 2005 and 2810 of 2005 are pending before Lucknow Bench, at Lucknow of this Court.  It is further submitted that another Writ Petition No. 38885 of 2005 by way of P.I.L is also pending before a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench.  It is  argued that this Court should not have entertained the Writ Petition.

We do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsels for the Appellants in as much as the pendency of the Writ Petitions at Lucknow cannot be treated as a fetter upon the jurisdiction of the principal Court at Allahabad.

The other limb of the objection on this score is that learned Single Judge should not have passed an order in Writ Petitions before High Court at Allahabad effecting districts falling exclusively in the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench.  

Prima facie we are also not able to accede to this objection particularly when selection process is being challenged in the Writ Petition relating to District falling in the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court at Allahabad and in that context entire selection under composite Advertisement cannot be said to be outside purview of this Court (giving rise to these Special Appeals pertaining to the entire State of U.P.).  However, this objection may be raised before learned Single Judge, as it is not disputed, that such an objection was not raised before the Learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that sweeping  interim mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge  carries serious repercussions.

Sri P.S.Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondents, however, countered said objection on the ground that there is relevant material on record to show that entire selection process is vitiated and in that view of the matter the learned single judge passed order restraining respondent authorities from sending the candidates on training and also giving appointment on the basis of the selection under challenge in the Writ Petition as otherwise whole purpose of the filing writ petition will be rendered infructuous.

Having considered the rival contentions of the respective parties we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge having come to the conclusion that there was prima facie some material to show that selection held in different districts was not fair. There is no embargo upon this Court, while exercising extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India, to issue a suitable order to the authority for deciding the matter efficaciously in the interest of justice particularly when the matter pertains to the interest of general public at large apart from efficiency of administrative and executive authorities in State of U.P.  If selection is vitiated, on the ground raised in the Writ petition it will affect the quality of  administration.

This Court, if comes to the conclusion that there is scope for further enquiry, we find no fetter on this Court exercising powers under Article 226, constitution of India even if matter may be overlapping. To that extent we find nothing wrong with the order passed by the Learned Single Judge.  

However, we find some substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that leaned single Judge should not have passed blanket order staying selection process in its entirety including restraining candidates to be sent on training or for issuing appointment letters at this stage since such order shall seriously prejudice the State in general and the candidates (who have been selected) in particular who shall suffer irreparably in case writ petition is dismissed finally.

In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that equities should be balanced and neither the appellants nor respondents should be made to suffer irreparably and also their remedy may not  be allowed to become redundant/infructuous.  

Accordingly, Appellants authorities should not be restrained from continuing the selection process in question or from sending candidates on training or from issuing appointment letters. It should be,  however, subject to the condition that appellants  shall not claim any additional advantage or privilege on the basis of their selection/appointments in the eventuality of the Writ Petition being finally allowed.  The appellants shall also not be entitled to take up the stand,  in case Writ Petition in question are finally allowed, to plead or take up the stand that petitioners remedy has become redundant/ infructuous.

The appellants shall not deprive the concerned candidates (the petitioners in question), if Writ Petitions are allowed on the ground that they had already made selection/appointment during the pendency of the Writ Petition.

In the result Special Appeals are partly allowed. The interim order dated 27.5.2005 passed by Learned Single Judge giving rise to the above Special Appeals stands modified to the extent noted/ observed above. The special appeals fails with respect to the other directions contained in the impugned order dated 27.5.2005 requiring Government to seal documents and place relevant record and information before learned Single Judge as desired in the said order.  

We further make it clear that it shall be open for the parties to raise all the question, as they may desire, and press their contentions  before learned Single judge in accordance with law. None of the observations made in this order shall prejudice their contentions which respective parties may make before learned Single judge.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.