Arun Kumar vs Committee Of Management Janpat ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 6377 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No.17							               AFR                                                                                                                                    
 
  									Reserved
 

 
                     Writ Petition No. 1158 of 2003 (S/S)
 
Arun Kumar aged about 28 years son of Sri Ram Dularey, 
 
resident of C/o Sri. R.P.Tripathi, Mohalla Munshiganj, 
 
Post Barabanki, District Barabanki
 
                                                                                                   ....Petitioner
 
                                           Vs.
 
1.Committee of Management Janpad Inter College, 
 
   Harakh, District Barabaki through its Manager.  
 
2 .Principal , Janpad Inter College, Harakh, District Barabaki
 
3 .District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki. 
 
                                                                                      .....Opposite parties  
 

 
			 And         
 
 		Writ Petition No. 319 of 2005 (S/S)
 
Arun Kumar aged about 30 years son of Sri Ram Dularey, 
 
resident of C/o Sri. R.P.Tripathi, Mohalla Munshiganj, 
 
Post Barabanki, District Barabanki
 
                                                                                                  ....Petitioner
 
                                           Vs.
 
1. Committee of Management, Janpad Inter college, 
 
   Harakh, District Barabaki through its Manager.  
 
2  .Principal , Janpad Inter College, Harakh, District Barabaki
 
3.District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki. 
 
                                                                                       ....Opposite parties
 

 
Counsel for the petitioner            : Shri Mohd. Ali
 
Counsel for the opposite parties : Additional Chief Standing Counsel,    Shri Chaudhary Shatrughan and Shri  Akash Dixit
 

 
Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.

Judgement

1. Both writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and almost all questions of law and facts involved therein centre around the legality of appointment and subsequent cancellation of appointment of petitioner on class IV post. Hence, they are being disposed of by a common judgement.

2. The petitioner filed writ petition bearing no. 1158 of 2003 (SS) with prayer to quash the order dated 22.1.2003 passed by the opposite party no. 2, Principal, Janpad Inter Collage, Harakh (For short college), District-Barabanki, whereby the petitioner's appointment made on class IV post on 6.1.2003 in Janpad Inter Collage, Harakh, District-Barabanki has been cancelled. He further prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to work in the college and pay to him salary every month.

3. By means of writ petition no. 319 (S/S) of 2005 the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 31.12.2004 published in Hindi daily news paper 'Aaj' Lucknow contained in Annexure no 8 to this writ petition. The petitioner further prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to work in the college and pay to him salary every month and also prayed for initiate appropriate action against the opposite parties for committing contempt of the order dated 20.2.2003. passed by this Court in writ petition no. 1158 of 2003 (S/S).

4. Brief facts for deciding the petitions as per pleadings of the parties are that on 8.12.2002, an advertisement was published in Hindi daily newspaper "Sahara Times" by opposite party no. 2 for the post of class IV employee inviting the candidates for the aforesaid post who are willing to participate in the process of selection. In the advertisement it was also mentioned that interested candidates should appear before the opposite party no. 2 on 3.1.2003 along with the necessary certificates. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner and other candidates were interviewed by opposite party no. 2. On the basis of the performance, the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of peon on vacant post by the Principal of the college, opposite party no. 2 vide appointment letter dated 3.1.2003 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition). In pursuance of this appointment letter, the petitioner joined the service on 6.1.2003 (Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition).

5. Opposite party no. 3, District inspector of Schools (for short DIOS) did not approve the action of the Principal appointing the petitioner on class IV post.

6. The DIOS visited the college on 23.12.2002 and found certain irregularities. He submitted his inspection report to the Manager of the college to take action against Principal Kandhai Lal. During the course of inspection, the DIOS found that Principal himself prepared a proposal of promotion on the post of Daftari and sent it for approval to the DIOS, Barabanki. The DIOS, Barabaki believing the statement of the Principal accorded the approval of promotion and fixed the pay accordingly. But the employee who is said to be promoted (Ram Adhar Yadav) made an application wherein he has forgiven his promotion on the ground that after promotion his salary shall be reduced as is evident from letter annexed as Annexure no.2 to the affidavit filed in support of objection to the recall application moved on behalf of the opposite party no. 1, whereby Ram Adhar Yadav, Paricharak refused his promotion to the post of Daftari and as such, no post of peon fell vacant. This fact has been concealed by the Principal while seeking approval of promotion.

7. From perusal of the impugned order dated 22.1.2003 passed by the DIOS, Barabanki it reveals that the applications for compassionate appointment of legal heirs of employees under Dying-in-Harness Rules are pending who were entitled to be appointed first on the vacant post of Peon and till the disposal of the said applications no such direct recruitment can be made by him. But ignoring this fact, the Principal has made appointment of the petitioner on class IV post, which is utter violation of Government Order and departmental directions. It has also been mentioned that Principal made an appointment of the petitioner against notification dated 2.2.1995 and no information regarding recruitment of class IV post has been pasted in the notice board of the college. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that without proper publication of advertisement for the alleged post, the petitioner who is brother-in-law of Dhruv Chandra Rai, Head clerk of the college, has been appointed illegally. The approval for filling the post of Class IV employee by the DIOS, Barabanki has been accorded to the Principal but Principal issued appointment letter to the petitioner without getting prior approval of the DIOS, Barabanki.

8. The DIOS, Barabanki vide letter (Annexures 2 and 3 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 (Management Committee) directed to take action against the Principal Kandhai Lal.

9. From the perusal of the contents of the petition it reveals that on 3.1.2003 appointment letter was issued to the petitioner and he was permitted to join the services on 6.1.2003 but in pursuance of the order passed by the DIOS, Barabanki the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on 22.1.2003 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition No. 1158 of 2003 (S/S).

10. In writ petition no. 1158 of 2003 (S/S) this court vide order dated 20.2.2003 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 22.1.2003 passed by the opposite party no. 2.

11. It reveals from the record that after cancellation of appointment of the petitioner a fresh advertisement was published for filling the vacancy of class IV post on 31.12.2004. The copy of the said advertisement has been annexed as Annexure- 8 to the writ petition no. 319 of 2005 (S/S).

12. The petitioner Arun Kumar aggrieved by this advertisement filed a fresh writ petition bearing no. 319 (SS ) of 2005 wherein the interim order has been passed on 13.1.2005, which is reproduced herein below:-

" Heard Shri Rakesh Srivastava , learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 3.

Issue notice to opposite parties no. 1 and 2.

The petitioner has been working on class IV post in Janpad Inter College,Harakh, District Barabanki since 6.1.2003. Later on, his services were terminated on 22.1.2003. The operation of the termination order dated 22.1.2003 was stayed on 20.2.2003 by this court in writ petition no. 1158 of 2003 (S/S), Arun Kumar Vs. Committee of Management and others. This interim order is still operative and the petitioner was allowed to hold the post in the above said institution.

Grievance of the petitioner is that the committee of Management of the institution in question is hurriedly going to make appointment on the post held by the petitioner. On 31.12.2004, an advertisement has been published inviting applications for appointment on the alleged vacant class IV post in the said college, As per the said advertisement, interview for the post in question is scheduled to be held on 16.1.2005. The petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, if any candidate is appointed in pursuance of advertisement and recruitment process. Only class IV post is occupied by the petitioner. The said interim order granted by this court is in vogue.

In view of the above, the opposite parties are restrained from making appointment on class IV post, for which advertisement has been published, which is contained in Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue on class IV post in Janpad Inter College, Harakh, District Barabanki, till further orders of this Court. He shall get monthly salary regularly with arrears of salary"

13. In paragraph 4 (iii) of the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner in writ petition no. 1158 of 2003 (S/S) it is stated that the vacancy on which the petitioner was appointed occurred due to promotion of one Ram Adhar Yadav, class IV employee to the post of Daftari. It is also stated that the Principal of the college after making appointment of petitioner had forwarded the necessary information along with relevant documents through its letter dated 6.1.2003 to the DIOS, Barabanki for its approval. The letter dated 6.1.2003 has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the rejoinder affidavit. It contains that the vacancy has been occurred on account of retirement of one Ram Lakhan, Daftari. The same was filled by promotion of one Ram Adhar Yadav, a class IV employee. Now the post of general category is lying vacant on account of promotion of Ram Adhar Yadav. Therefore, the post of class IV employee has been filled up by making appointment of petitioner Arun Kumar from 6.1.2003. The extract of peon book has also been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. Three letters i.e. appointment of Phoolmati, certificate of pension paper and appointment of Arun Kumar, were sent to the DIOS, Barbanki on 15.1.2003 through Ram Adhar Yadav, which were received in the office of DIOS, Barabanki.

14. The inspection was conducted by the DIOS, Barabanki on 23rd December, 2002 and the report of which was communicated to the Manager of the college on 18.1.2003.

15. Vide order dated 13.2.2013 this Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 1158 of 2003 (S/S) with observation that by efflux of time the writ petition has lost its efficacy. In pursuance of the said order of dismissal of writ one Mohan Singh, Manager, Janpad Inter College, Harakh, Barabanki wrote a letter dated 16.3.2013 to the Principal, Janpad Inter College, Harakh, Barabanki disclosing therein that the DIOS, Barabanki by letter dated 22.1.2003 has disapproved the appointment of the petitioner and the writ petition has been dismissed, as such there is no justification for continuance of services of the petitioner and the same should be dispensed with. The letter dated 16.3.2013 is annexed as Annexure no. 4 to the recall application.

16. Neither the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.1.2003 passed by the DIOS, Barabanki in any of the writ petition filed by him nor the Principal has challenged the same before any authority or before any court of law.

17. In writ petition no. 319 of 2005 (S/S) an interim order was passed on 13.1.2005 restraining the opposite parties from making appointment on class IV post, for which advertisement has been published, Annexure no. 8 to this writ petition and the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on class IV post in Janpad Inter College, Harakh, District Barabanki till further orders of this Court. He shall get monthly salary regularly with arrears of salary.

18. When the interim order dated 13.1.2005 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition was not complied with by the authority concerned, the petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. Case No. 1822 of 2005 (C) and only in pursuance thereof the DIOS passed the order of payment of salary from the date of of joining subject to final adjudication of the writ petition. Perusal of the order dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure no. 4 ) reveals that before 13.1.2005 the petitioner was not allowed to join in pursuance of the earlier interim order passed by this Court on 20.2.2003 in writ petition no. 1158 of 2003 (S/S) . Only after orders passed in contempt petition the petitioner was said to have been allowed to join on the post of class IV and payment of salary was made.

19. In both these writ petitions the counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavits have been exchanged.

20. On 13.2.2003, the writ petition no. 1158 of 2003 (S/S) was dismissed for want of prosecution. The same was restored to its original number vide order dated 30.5.2003.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of order of appointment of the petitioner vide letter dated 22.1.2003 issued by the Principal on the ground that the same is against the principles of natural justice, non speaking and illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

22. Opposite party no.1, Committee of Management, Janpad Inter College, Harakh, Barabaki opposed the writ by filing counter affidavit alleging therein that these petitions have been filed with collusion of the petitioner and the principal. The appointment of the petitioner has been made without proper advertisement , without consent of the committee of management and without prior approval /permission of the DIOS. No advertisement was properly made for the post, in which neither name of post nor requisite qualification for the post and age limit was mentioned. Even the appointment letter has not been issued to the petitioner before seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner from the DIOS. Moreover the DIOS did not approve the appointment of the petitioner made by the Principal at all but the petitioner is continuing work on the alleged post in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court in writ petition No.319 of 2005 on 13.1.2005, the day when it was instituted. Therefore, the appointment letter issued by the Principal is liable to be struck down. It is further stated that the petitioner is brother in law of one Dhruv Chandra Rai, who was working as Head Clerk in the college and as such the appointment of the petitioner has been made in violation of Regulations 31, 100 and 101 of Chapter III of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (For short the Act). The applications of the legal heirs of the employees working in the college under Dying-in-Harness Rules have not been considered before making the appointment of the petitioner and the entire procedure adopted for making appointment is illegal and the DIOS rightly did not accord the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. In consequence thereof, the letter cancellation of appointment issued by the Principal cannot be quashed in these proceedings. It is further submitted that after cancellation of appointment of the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the DIOS, there appears no illegality in making fresh advertisement of the post for appointment. The post of Daftari is vacant. It is promotional post and wrong approval has been obtained by the Principal as is evident from the report of the DIOS.

23. On the aforesaid grounds, the opposite parties stated that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are liable to be dismissed.

24. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Chief Standing Shri Chaudhary Shatrughan relied upon the following judgements:

(i). 2013 (1) ADJ 401 (LB) , Rajesh Kumar Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others.

(ii). 2006 (24) LCD 1712 Jagdish Singh Vs. State of U.P.

25. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that in this matter the appointment was not made in accordance with rules and established procedure and the same is utter violation of Regulations 101 and 107 (both inclusive) and as such he relied upon the judgement of Apex Court reported in AIR 1967 SC 295 Barium Chemicals and another Vs. Company Law Board and others and 1999 (3) SCC 422 Babu Verghese and others Vs. Bar council of Kerala and others; wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that things should be done in the manner provided in the statute or not at all. He further relied upon the judgements of Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services U.P. Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya 2002 (5) SCC 521, Kanahiya Lal Chand Sachdev Vs. State of Maharshtra , 2011 (2) SCC 782 and submitted that there is provision of statutory appeal against the order of Principal as contained in Regulation 31 of Chapter III of the Act, hence these writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy.

26. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that permission as contemplated in Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Act can be inferred from the conduct and correspondence made by DIOS. On this score, he relied upon the judgement reported in 2009 (2) UPLBEC 1509 Mohan Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others . This case was on fact is different from the case in hand. This was a case in which the approval was not denied on the post of Jamadar. Here in the case in hand the DIOS has disapproved the appointment of the petitioner which has not been challenged in any of the writ petitions. He further relied upon the judgement reported in 2006 (8) SCC 192 , Union of India and others Vs. Bikash Kuanar, where in it has been ruled that when selection committee recommends selection of a person, the same cannot be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegation of favouritism or bias. Judicial review in such type of cases is not permissible.

27. It is not in dispute that Manager alleged that the petitioner is brother in law of head clerk posted in the college and this fact has not been denied by the petitioner either in the petitions or in any other petition filed by him.

28. It is also important to mention here that the selection was not found to be in accordance with law by the competent authority. The order of competent authority was not challenged.

29. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Principal while cancelling the appointment of the petitioner assigned no reason and simply mentioned that for special reason the appointment is cancelled. No opportunity of being heard has been given before cancellation of appointment of the petitioner.

30. Per contra, it has been submitted by the counsel for the opposite parties that admittedly the appointment of the petitioner was in de hors of rules and such a person cannot claim the violation of principle of natural justice, if the statutory rule has been violated in making the appointment, therefore, no advantage of these authorities can be extended to the petitioner.

31. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgement in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others 1999 (17) LCD 219. He has given emphasis in para 15, wherein it is has been observed that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exercising the jurisdiction of Article 226 of Constitution of India by the High Courts. It has been consistently held by this Court that alternative remedy not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice of where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an act is challenged. On the strength of this authority, he argued that the writ petition may be entertained if the alternative remedy is available.

32. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite parties that here in this case neither writ petitions have been filed for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights nor it is a case wherein the authorities exercised the jurisdiction not vested with him while passing the impugned order. There is no challenge to the vires of the Act. So far as the principles of natural justice are concerned, the petitioner's appointment was neither made after approval of the DIOS nor the petitioner was ever permitted to join on the post with prior approval of the DIOS , hence appointment and permitting the petitioner to join by the Principal both are without authority of law and virtually the Principal acted without jurisdiction and the petitioner's services were terminated by the Principal after getting the information of wrong appointment. Therefore, in such type of cases it cannot be said that principles of natural justice are violated.

33. Moreover, in such circumstances, if efficacious and effective alternative remedy in the statue is available against the order impugned, the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked.

34. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that both writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:-

I. Neither before processing the appointment on the alleged vacant post any approval has been sought from the DIOS nor any approval has been sought before issuing appointment letter to the petitioner which was not in conformity with regulation having statutory force as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh (supra) and Rajesh Kumar Misra (supra). The relevant paras 22 to 27 of the judgement in Rajesh Kumar Misra's case (Supra) are reproduced herein below:-

"(22). Words 'prior approval' used in regulation 101 has been explained in Jagdish Singh's case. The Division Bench while explaining the same in Para 20, 21 and 22 has observed that the prior approval by the District Inspector of School is required after completion of the process of selection and before issuance of the appointment letter to the selected candidate. Para 20, 21 and 22 of Judgment of Jagdish Singh's case (Supra) are reproduced herein below:-

20. Scheme of Regulations 101 to 107 makes it clear that after receiving an intimation of vacancy, the District Inspector of Schools is empowered to send the application of member of deceased employee, who is entitled for compassionate appointment to the institution, who has to issue appointment letter to such candidate. It is, however, implied in the scheme that in the event there is no candidate entitled for compassionate appointment to fill a particular vacancy, the intimation of which has been received by the District Inspector of Schools, the District Inspector of Schools can direct the appointing authority to fill up vacancy by direct recruitment but even in a case the selection is made by direct recruitment by the Principal/committee of management, prior approval is required of the District Inspector of Schools before issuing an appointment letter to the selected candidate. Without prior approval of the Inspector, the Principal or the committee of management cannot issue an appointment letter or permit joining of any candidate. The requirement of prior approval in Regulation 101 is a condition precedent before issuing an appointment letter and is mandatory. The observation of the learned single Judge in the case of Dingur v. District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur (supra) as quoted above, is also to the effect that approval has to be considered by the District Inspector of Schools after examining ,the proceeding relating to appointment and after examining as to whether prescribed procedure in a fair manner has been followed or not.

21. The observation "of the learned single Judge in Ram Dhani's case (supra) that previous approval under Regulation 101 is required to be taken before issuing advertisement for filling up vacancy does not lay down correct law. We, however, make it clear that although prior approval is required from the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection but there is no prohibition in the Principal/Management to seek permission of the District Inspector of Schools for filling up vacancy by direct recruitment. The permission may or may not be granted by the District Inspector of Schools but even if such permission to start the selection process or to issue advertisement is granted that is not akin to prior approval as contemplated under Regulation 101.

22.In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that prior approval contemplated under Regulation 101 is prior approval by the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection and before issuance of appointment letter to the selected candidate.

(23) Admittedly, the letter part of mandate of Jagdish Singh's case (Supra) has not been observed by the Principal of the School. He issued appointment letter and permitted to join the petitioner in the school without prior approval of the DIOS.

(24) So far as the earlier part of this exercise conducted by the Principal is concerned, in the opinion of this court the Principal was not competent to initiate the process of direct recruitment to fill up the vacancy occurred on account of retirement of Rameshwar Prasad in the cadre of Class IV unless all the matters relating to compassionate appointment are not disposed of. In such situation if there was some emergency or any compelling circumstances for making immediate appointment then the Principal or management of School was under statutory obligation to present a case before DIOS and to seek permission to fill up the vacancy by direct recruitment after suspending the process of making compassionate appointment on the vacant post, which admittedly has not been done by the Principal or the management of the School.

(25) From perusal of the regulations from 101 to 107 there is a scheme and there exists a legislative intent behind it. It leaves no room to doubt that until the applications of the persons waiting for compassionate appointment are finally disposed of , the appointing authority should not proceed to make direct recruitment on the vacant post. If it was necessary in the interest of the institution to make immediate appointment the appointing authority, i.e., Principal must place the reasons in writing before District Inspector of School and must seek prior permission to make direct recruitment on the vacant post.

(26) In the aforesaid situation without giving much importance to the correspondence alleged to have been taken place in between the Principal and the DIOS as alleged according to petitioner, this court is of the view that this matter may be decided on the broader legal aspect of the case. In view of willful violation by principal of the statutory mandate contained in regulations 101 to 107 as discussed above, the impugned order of DIOS cannot said to be against the law or facts.

(27) In view of the fact that the person waiting for compassionate appointment, for whom information was sought by the DIOS by its letter dated 20.3.2010, have already given appointment on another vacant post, it would be proper that Principal may initiate fresh process of selection to fill up the vacant post, if any available in class IV cadre, of course, subject to fulfilment of mandatory requirements of regulations 101 to 107 of Chapter III of Sub section 6 of Section 16 of the Act and also in accordance with the provisions of law. "

II. Admittedly the procedure for appointing the petitioner on class IV post has not been followed which is provided in Regulations 100 to 107. In view of the above, the cases of Barium Chemicals (supra) and Babu Verghese (supra) are fully applicable. The case in hand is covered with the ratio propounded by the aforesaid judgements as held in paras 31 and 32 of Babu Verghese (supra) which are reproduced herein below:-

"31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor vs. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D 426 which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor 63 Indian Appeals 372 = AIR 1936 PC 253 who stated as under :

"Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all."

32.. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & Anr. vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh 1954 SCR 1098 = AIR 1954 SC 322 and again in Deep Chand vs. State of Rajasthan 1962(1) SCR 662 = AIR 1961 SC 1527. These cases were considered by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 358 = (1964) 1 SCWR 57 and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad's case (supra) was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law."

III. The order disapproving the appointment of the petitioner by the DIOS vide letter dated 22.1.2003 addressed to the Principal has not been challenged by the petitioner in either of the writ petitions.

IV. The order of cancellation of appointment passed by the Principal is appellable one to the committee of management in view of the Regulation 31 of Chapter III framed under section 16 G of the Act, hence the petitioner having effective and efficacious remedy provided under the statute, hence these writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed on the basis of availability of efficacious and effective remedy.

35. For ready reference Regulation 31 of Chapter III of the Act is reproduced herein under:-

"deZpkfj;ksa dks izkIr n.M] ftlds fy, fujh{kd vFkok eaMyh; fujh{kd dh iwoZ Loh--fr vko';d gksxh] fuEufyf[kr esa ls fdlh ,d #i esa gks ldrh gS&

III¼d½ fo;qfä

IV¼[k½ ???????? ???? ??????????

V¼x½ ?????? ??? ??????

VI¼?k½ ?????????? ??? ????

VII prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dks उपरोक्त dksbZ n.M nsus gsrq iz/kkukpk;Z vFkok iz/kkuk/;kid l{ke gksxkA l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk n.M fn;s tkus dh n'kk esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ks }kjk izCka/k lfefr dks vihy dh tk ldsxhA ;g vihy n.M lwfpr fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds vUnj izLrqr gks tkuh pkfg;s vkSj ml ij izCka/k lfefr }kjk fu.kZ; dj vihy dh izkfIr dh frfFk ls vf/kdre 6 lIrkg ds Hkhrj ns fn;k tk;sxkA leLr vko';d vfHkys[kksa ij fopkj djus ,oa deZpkjhsa dh] ;fn og izCka/k lfefr ds le{k Lo;a mifLFkr gksuk pkgs] lquokbZ ds i'pkr~ izcU/k lfefr vihy ij fu.kZ; nsxhA

VIII prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dks ;g Hkh vf/kdkj gksxk fd mldh vihy ij fd;s x;s izca/k lfefr ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) og ftyk fo|ky; fujh{[email protected]; ckfydk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk dks] fu.kZ; lwfpr fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds vUnj vH;kosnu dj ldsxkA

IX fdUrq izfrCkU/k ;g gksxk fd ;fn izCkU/k lfefr mi;qDr fu/kkZfjr N% lIrkg dh vof/k ds Hkhrj viuk fu.kZ; mijksDr vihy ij u ns rks lEcfU/kr deZpkjh viuk vH;kosnu lh/ks ftyk fo|ky; fujh{[email protected]; ckfydk fo|ky; fujh{kdk dks mijksDr N% lIrkg dh vof/k chr tkus ij ns ldrk gSA

X ftyk fo|ky; fujh{[email protected]; ckfydk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk }kjk mijksDr vH;kosnu ij vH;kosnu dh izkfIr dh frfFk ls vf/kdre rhu ekg ds Hkhrj fu.kZ; ns fn;k tk;sxk vkSj ;g fu.kZ; vfUre gksxkA

XI vH;kosnu ds izLrqrhdj.k fopkj ,ao fu.kZ; ds lEcU/k esa vko';d ifjoZru ds lkFk bl v/;k; ds fofu;e 86 ls 98 ykxw gksaxsA"

36. In view of the above these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

37. Consequently both writ petitions are dismissed. The interim orders granted by this Court in both these writ petitions are hereby discharged.

GSY

Dt.09.10.2013