Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/19 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 12 November, 2024
Page No.# 1/19
GAHC010255772013
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6316/2013
NIPUN BARMAN and 2 ORS
ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF TEA DEVELOPMENT, TEA BOARD, REGIONAL
OFFICE, CHOWKIDINGHEE, P.O. DIBRUGARH, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
2: RITURAJ HAZARIKA
ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF TEA DEVELOPMENT
TEA BOARD ZONAL OFFICE
NEAR TRA COMPLEX
P.O. CHINAMARA
DIST- JORHAT
ASSAM
3: SANJIB RAJBONGSHI
ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF TEA DEVELOPMENT
TEA BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE
T.T. MARG
VIP ROAD
ITANAGAR
A.P.-79111
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, UDYOG
BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-11
2:THE TEA BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
14-B.T.M. SARANI
KOLKATA-700001
3:THE CHAIRMAN
TEA BOARD
Page No.# 2/19
14-B.T.M. SARANI
KOLKATA-700001
4:THE SECRETARY
TEA BOARD
14-B.T.M. SARANI
KOLKATA-700001
5:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TEA BOARD ZONAL OFFICE
NEAR TRA COMPLEX
P.O. CINNAMARA
DIST- JORHAT-78500
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.U DUTTA, MR S NATH,MR.M CHANDA,MR.B C DAS,MR.S
CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S P CHOUDHURY, MR. N J GOGOI (SC, TEA
BOARD),ASSTT.S.G.I.,MR.S SAIKIA(R-4)(R- 2-5),C.G.C.,MR.P SAIKIA(R-4)(R- 2-5)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of Hearing: 14-08-2024
Date of Judgment: 12-11-2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.
N. J. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Tea Board, representing the
respondent nos. 2 to 5.
2. The challenge made in the present proceeding is to an Office
Memorandum bearing No. 139/2013 dated 01.07.2013, by which the
promotions of the petitioners, herein, to the post of Assistant Director, Tea
Development effected vide O.M. dated 18.07.2011 and 09.08.2011, were
cancelled with a further prescription for effecting recovery of the excess
salaries drawn by the petitioners, herein, while holding the promotional post
Page No.# 3/19
of Assistant Director, Tea Development.
3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioners herein were initially
recruited in the year 2007 as Assistant Development Officers in the Tea
Board and were posted at Dibrugarh, Jorhat and Itanagar respectively. In
pursuance to the recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission, the
post of Assistant Development Officer came to be merged with that of the
post of Development Officer w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Consequentially, the
petitioners herein having been recruited as Assistant Development Officer
after 01.01.2006, are to be deemed to have been holding the post of
Development Officer since their date of initial recruitment.
4. In terms of the provisions of the "Tea Board (Recruitment and
conditions of Services of Officers appointed by Government) Rules, 1971"
which was adopted by the Tea Board for its employees also, the next
promotional avenue available to the incumbents in the post of Development
Officer are the post figuring in the cadre of Assistant Director of Tea
Development. Accordingly, on completion of the requisite length of service
as Development Officers, the cases of the petitioners came to be considered
for promotion to the posts of Assistant Director of Tea Development, under
the provisions of the said rules. On consideration of their cases the petitioner
nos. 2 and 3 came to be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Director of Tea
Development vide issuance of Office Memorandum dated 18.07.2011. The
petitioner No. 1 was so promoted vide issuance of Office Memorandum dated
09.08.2011. All the petitioners joined against their respective promotional
post immediately thereafter.
Page No.# 4/19
5. The respondents thereafter, proceeded to issue an Office Memorandum
dated 01.07.2023, towards cancelling the promotions effected in respect of
the petitioners to the cadre of Assistant Director of Tea Development in the
year 2011. The Office Memorandum dated 01.07.2023, stipulates that the
cancellation of the promotions of the petitioners were warranted, inasmuch
as, the same were so effected in violation of the provisions of the
Department of Personnel and Training Circular No. AB-14017/2008-Estt(RR)
dated 24.03.2009.
6. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that the said Rules of 1971 were all along being applied by the
Tea board for promotions of employees appointed by the Tea Board.
Accordingly, in terms of the prescriptions made, therein with regard to the
eligibility criterias requisite for recruitment to the various posts so involved, it
is contended that for the post of Assistant Director of Tea Development, was
mandated to be so filled up by way of promotion. However, in the event of
non-availability of suitable departmental candidates, it was provided that the
same could be filled up by way of direct recruitment. The eligibility criteria as
mandated for recruitment against the post of Assistant Director of Tea
Development, reveals that the same requires an incumbent in the cadre of
Development Officer to have a degree from a recognized university along
with 4 to 5 years experience of tea culture and manufacture in all its aspects.
Mr. Nath contends that the petitioners, herein, having satisfied the eligibility
criterias as spelt out in the said Rules of 1971, their cases for promotion to
the cadre of Assistant Director of Tea Development were considered and
Page No.# 5/19
accordingly, they were so promoted to the said posts in the year 2011.
7. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, has further submitted
that the respondent authorities vide the impugned Office Memorandum No.
139 of 2013 dated 01.07.2013, by holding that the minimum qualifying
service required to be satisfied by an incumbent in the cadre of Development
Officer for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Director of Tea Development
being 08 years in terms of the DoPT Circular dated 24.03.2009 and
12.03.2010, proceeded to hold that the petitioners herein not having
satisfied the said period of residency in the feeder post of Development
Officer, their promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Tea Development
was not sustainable.
8. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing the attention
of this Court to the subsequent by-laws, more particularly, the Tea Board
(Recruitment, Promotions and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staffs)
by-laws, 2015 has contended that although for the purpose of reverting the
petitioners to the cadre of Development Officer vide the said impugned
Office Memorandum dated 01.07.2013, it was contended that the petitioners
had not satisfied the minimum residency of 08 years in the post of
Development Officer, however, in the said by-laws of 2015, the minimum
residency required for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant
Director, Tea Development has been mandated as only 05 (five) years. Mr.
Nath, submits that the reasons assigned for cancellation of the promotion of
the petitioners vide the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.2013 herein are not
sustainable and accordingly, the O.M. dated 01.07.2013 requires interference
Page No.# 6/19
from this Court.
9. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
the Office Memorandum No. 139/2013 dated 01.07.2013, issued towards
cancelling the promotions of the petitioners, herein, effected in the year
2011, was an action taken unilaterally by the authorities of the Tea Board
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein.
Accordingly, Mr. Nath, submits that the said action in addition to be in
violation of the provisions of the Rules of 1971 applicable at the relevant
point of time when the promotions in respect of the petitioners were so
affected, is also violative of the principles of natural justice and
administrative fair play.
10. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the
contentions made by the respondents in Paragraph-7 of their affidavit, has
submitted that the respondents had contended that the Board used to follow
the provisions of the Tea Board amendment by-laws, 1981, till the enactment
of the provisions of the said by-laws of 2015. Mr. Nath, by referring to the
prescriptions made in the Schedule available in the said by-laws of 1981,
more particularly, pertaining to the recruitment conditions to the post of
Assistant Director of Tea Development has submitted that the same is pari
materia to the eligibility criteria provided under the provisions of the said
Rules of 1971 and accordingly, submits that the by-laws of 2015 having been
enacted subsequent to the promotion as so effected in respect of the
petitioners herein and the by-laws of 2015 having not been granted a
retrospective effect, the same could not have been utilized for the purpose
Page No.# 7/19
of causing reversion of the petitioners to the post of Development Officer.
11. Mr. Nath, learned counsel in the above premises has submitted that
this Court would be pleased to interfere with the said Office Memorandum
dated 01.07.2013 along with an interference with the advertisement
available at Annexure-7 to the writ petition, by which 12 posts of Assistant
Director of Tea Development was put up for direct recruitment and the said
posts so advertised also included the posts of Assistant Director, Tea
Development held by the petitioners herein.
12. Per-contra, Mr. N. J. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents by
referring to the affidavit filed in the matter by the authorities of the Tea
Board, has contended that the promotions so effected in the case of the
petitioners, herein, were in clear violation of the residency period mandated
under the provisions of the DoPT circulars. It is contended that the circulars
issued by the DoPT are applicable to the service conditions of the employees
of the Tea Board and accordingly, the same was mandatorily required to be
followed and accordingly, on a review of the promotions so effected in the
case of the petitioners herein in the year 2011; and the same having been
found to have been so issued in violation of the said DoPT guidelines, the
same was cancelled vide issuance of the impugned Office Memorandum
bearing No. 139/2013 dated 01.07.2013.
13. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on
the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Neerav Vashisht and Ors. Vs.
Tea Board, India and Ors. in W.P. No. 18713 (W) of 2013, wherein a
Page No.# 8/19
challenge made by the incumbents in the post of the Development Officer to
the process adopted for filling up the available vacancies in the post of
Assistant Director through direct recruitment was rejected. Mr. Gogoi, has
further submitted that the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of
Neerav Vashisht and Ors. (supra) was carried up on appeal and the
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in Debajit Borah & Ors. Vs.
Tea Board, India & Ors. F.M.A. No. 1957 of 2014, had concluded that
in absence of any by-laws framed under Section 50 of the Tea Board Act, the
Board is competent to take its decision in its administrative side for
regulating the service conditions of its employees and applicability of such
decision does not depend upon amendment of the Rules of 1971, which per
se was held to be not applicable to employees appointed by the Board.
14. In view of the said conclusions reached by the High Court of Calcutta,
both by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the said
court, Mr. Gogoi, submits that the respondent authorities had not committed
any error in issuing the O.M. dated 139/2013 dated 01.07.2013 and
accordingly, the same is required to be upheld reverting the petitioners to
the post of Development Officer with further direction for their promotion,
strictly, in accordance with the procedure now put in place by the authorities
of the Tea Board vide the said by-laws of 2015.
15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
materials available on record.
16. It is an admitted position that following the procedure in place, as of
Page No.# 9/19
2011, the cases of the petitioners herein, who had at the relevant point of
time completed at least 04 years of service as Development Officers, came
to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Tea
Development. On such considerations being made, the Tea Board had
promoted the petitioners herein to the post of Assistant Director, Tea
Development vide issuance of the Office Memorandums dated 18.07.2011
and 09.08.2011 respectively.
17. The Tea Board in its affidavit filed in the present proceedings with
regard the procedure followed for promotion of its employees, had
contended in Paragraph-7 as follows:-
7. "That with regards to the statement in paragraph 4 of the Writ
Petition, the deponent begs to state that at the time of filling of the
present writ the Board used to follow the Schedule Annexed to the Tea
Board (Amendment) Bye Laws, 1981, but now recruitment and
promotion of officers appointed by the Board is governed by Tea Board
(Recruitment, Promotion and Conditions of Service of Officers and
Staff) By-laws, 2015".
18. The respondents, in its affidavit has annexed as "Annexure-I", the
amendment to the Tea Board by-laws 1981 as effected vide the notification
dated 25.06.1981, along with the schedule thereof.
19. A perusal of the schedule as annexed to the Tea Board (amendment
Page No.# 10/19
by-laws 1981), it is seen that for recruitment to the post of Assistant Director
of Tea Development, the eligibility criteria was prescribed as under:-
% of posts to be For Direct
filled by: recruitment
Method
Scale Educatio
SL. Name of Remar
of Duties nal
No. of post · Direct promoti ks
Pay qualifica
Promoti recruitm Age on
tion and
on ent
experien
ce
3. Assista Rs.80 To Normally to be filled Not Essential By
nt 00- assist up by promotion excee : (i) Selectio
Director 275- the except when in the ding Degree n from :
of Tea 1350 Director opinion of the 45 of a
Develop 0/- of Tea appointing authority years recogniz Develop
ment Develop suitable ed ment
ment in departmental Universit Officer-
impleme candidates are not y;(ii) former
nting available About 4
Supdt.
any to 5
(Dev.)
scheme years
about experien
the ce of tea
develop culture
ment of and
tea manufact
gardens ure in all
and its
examina aspects
tion of
problem Desirable
s : A
Page No.# 11/19
Diploma
or
Degree
in
relating
Agricultur
to the
e.
tea
Educatio
industry
nal
measur
Qualificat
es for
ion may
improve
be
ment in
relaxed
the
in the
working
case of
conditio
otherwis
n of
e
gardens
exceptio
etc.
nally
suitable
candidat
e.
19. The petitioners in the writ petition have relied upon the provisions of
the "Tea Board (Recruitment and conditions of Services of Officers appointed
by Government) Rules, 1971". On a perusal of the notification dated
25.05.1971, publishing the said Rules, it is revealed that the said Rules were
so made in exercise of the provisions of Sub-section (i) read with Clause (d)
of Sub-Section (ii) of Section 49 of the Tea Act 1953. Section 49 pertains to
the powers of the Central Government to make Rules and the provisions of
Sub-clause (d) of Clause II of Section 49 pertains to the power of the Central
Government to provide for the pay, allowances and other conditions of
service of the Deputy Chairman, Secretary and other Officers appointed by
Page No.# 12/19
the Central Government.
20. A further perusal of the provisions of the Tea Act 1953 would go to
reveal that Section 50 thereof, provides for the power of the Board to make
by-laws, consistent with the Act and Rules framed there under including the
power to prescribe for the conditions of service of its officers and other
employees other than those appointed by the Central Government, including
their pay, leave allowances, pension etc.
21. The authorities of the Tea Board in the affidavit have made categorical
contentions to the effect that, recruitment of Officers appointed by the Board
were being governed by the schedule annexed to the Tea Board
(amendment) by-laws 1981. As noticed herein above, the prescriptions as
made in the said by-laws, with regard to the post of Assistant Director of Tea
Development is pari materia to the provisions made in this connection under
the provisions of the said Rules of 1971. The prescriptions as made in the
Schedule to the Tea Board (amendment) by-laws 1981, in terms of the
contentions made by the respondents in the present proceeding held the
field till enactment of the Tea Board (Recruitment, Promotions and
Conditions of Services of Officers and Staffs) by-laws 2015. It to be noted
that the by-laws of 2015 were so made under the provisions of Sub-section
II of Section 50 of the Tea Act, 1953 i.e., in exercise of the powers vested
upon the Board to make Rules for employees recruited by it.
22. A perusal of the said by-laws of 2015, more particularly, by-law 13
thereof, would go to show that the Tea board (Recruitment and Conditions
Page No.# 13/19
of Services Appointed by Government) Rules, 1971 to the extent applicable
to officers and staffs of the Board having Grade Pay up to Rs. 6,600/- was
repealed.
23. The above prescriptions as made in the provisions by-laws 13 of the
said by-laws of 2015, would go to prove the veracity of the contentions of
the petitioners herein that the provisions of the Rules of 1971, on being
adopted, was made applicable to the process of direct recruitment as well as
promotion of employees appointed by the Board in addition to the same
being made applicable to officers appointed by the Central Government.
24. It is also to be further noted that the provisions of the by-laws of 2015
were not given any retrospective effect and was mandated to come into
force only from the date of its publication in the official gazette.
25. Having noticed the position with regard to the Recruitment Rules
holding the field in the Tea Board, this Court is of the considered view that
in the year 2011 when the cases of the petitioners, herein, were so
considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Tea Development,
it is the provisions of the said Rules of 1971, or the Eligibility Conditions as
mandated in the Schedule appended to the Tea Board (amendment) by-laws
1981, that held the field with regard to the eligibility criterias mandated to be
satisfied by an incumbent in the post of Development Officer for promotion
to the cadre of Assistant Director, Tea Development and accordingly, it is to
be concluded that the promotions as effected in respect of the petitioners
herein were in consonance with the prescriptions of the eligibility criterias in
Page No.# 14/19
the said Rules of 1971 and/or the schedule appended to the Tea Board
(amendment) by-laws 1981.
26. At this stage, this court is required to examine the reasons so
assigned by the authorities in the Office Memorandum No. 139 of 2013
dated 01.07.2013, by which the promotions as effected in respect of the
petitioners herein to the post of Assistant Director of Tea Development was
cancelled.
27. A perusal of the said the Office Memorandum No. 139 of 2013 dated
01.07.2013 would go to reveal that the said action has been stated to have
been done, inasmuch as, the promotions as effected in respect of the
petitioners herein were held to be in violation of the guidelines laid down by
the DoPT vide its circular dated 24.03.2009 and 12.03.2010. The reason as
put forth vide the said Office Memorandum dated 01.07.2013, being relevant
is extracted herein below:-
"And whereas, it has been brought to the notice of the Competent
authority about guidelines issued by DOPT vide OM dated 8.02.2012
and OM dated 16.2.2005 wherein all the Ministries and the subordinate
organisation there under have been directed to amend the recruitment
and service rule incorporating the method of 'selection' for effecting
promotion.
And whereas, in the DOPT circular No. AB 14017/2008- Estt. (RR)
dated 24.03.2009 & 12.03.2010 the minimum qualifying service for
Page No.# 15/19
promotion from the post having the grade pay of Rs 4200/- (present
grade pay of the Development Officers) to the post having grade pay
of 5400/- (Present Grade Pay of Assistant Director of Tea
Development) has been kept at 8 years.
And whereas, no existing Development Officers neither have 8
years of qualifying service as per the aforesaid circular of the DOP&T
not have the minimum qualifying service period of 7 years as per the
1971 R & P Rules at present being followed in the Board.
And whereas, Sri Nipun Burman (B-285), Sri Rituraj Hazarika (H-
32) and Sri Sanjib Rajabangshi (R-241) were promoted to the post of
Assistant Director Tea Development vide OM dated 18.7.2011 and
09.08.2011.
Now, after examination it has been found that the promotion of Sri
Nipun Burman, Sri Rituraj Hazarika and Sri Sanjib Rajabanshi has been
done in contravention of the above Recruitment Rule of the Board and
the above mentioned circular of DOPT. Accordingly, the promotion
order of Sri Nipun Burman, Sri Rituraj Hazarika and Sri Sanjib
Rajabanshi is cancelled and the O.M. NO. 109/2011 dated 18.7.2011
and O.M. NO. 126/2011 dated 09.8.2011 stand modified to that extent
Establishment shall take appropriate action for recovery of excess
salary drawn by Sri Nipun Burman, Sri Rituraj Hazarika and Sri Sanjib
Rajabangshi."
Page No.# 16/19
28. A perusal of the said conclusions as contained in the Office
Memorandum No. 139 of 2013 dated 01.07.2013, would go to reveal that the
petitioners having not completed 08 years of service as on the date their
cases were so considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Tea
Development, in terms of the prescriptions made in this connection in the
DoPT Circulars dated 24.03.2009 and 12.03.2010, the said promotions were
held to be not sustainable and accordingly, were cancelled.
29. While the reasons assigned for the purpose of reverting the petitioners
to the post of Development Officer is that they have not completed the
residency of 08 years in the said posts, before promotion to the post of
Assistant Director, Tea Development, it is seen that the same very Board
while prescribing the eligibility criterias for recruitment to the post of
Assistant Director, Tea Development, vide the said by-laws of 2015; had
prescribed the minimum residency of an incumbent for being considered to
the post of Assistant Director of Tea Development in the post of
Development Officer would be 05 years of working experience either as
Manager or Assistant Manager in a tea garden. The said prescription so
made after 02 years from the date of issuance of the Office Memorandum
dated 01.07.2013 would go to reveal that the reasoning as advanced by the
authorities of the Tea Board for the purpose of reverting the petitioners to
the post of Development Officer is clearly un-sustainable.
30. Further, it is to be also noted that the prescriptions of eligibility criterias
as put forth vide the DoPT Circulars dated 24.03.2009 and 12.03.2010, were
never incorporated in the recruitment rules and/or the by-laws of the
Page No.# 17/19
corporation at any point of time and accordingly, without having made an
amendment to the provisions of either the said Rules of 1971 and/or to the
schedule as appended to the Tea Board Amendment Rules, 1981, it was so
not open to the authorities of the Tea Board to take a view that the
petitioners at the relevant point of time when they were so promoted to the
post of Assistant Director, Tea Development, had not fulfilled the mandated
eligibility criterias holding the field in the Board at that point of time.
31. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the decisions of the Calcutta
High Court, in the case of Neerav Vashisht and Ors. Vs. Tea Board,
India and Ors. in W.P. No. 18713 (W) of 2013, wherein the challenge
made by the incumbents in the post of Development Officer to a decision
adopted by the respondent authorities for filling up the said post by way of
direct recruitment came to be rejected. It is seen that the stand as taken by
the Tea Board in the present proceedings that the recruitment conditions to
the post of Assistant Director of Tea Development was being so made in
terms of the provisions of the Schedule as annexed to the Tea Board
(amendment) by laws, 1981 was not so raised before the High Court of
Calcutta in the above noted proceeding.
32. Further, the consideration made by the High Court of Calcutta in the
case of Neerav Vashisht and Ors. (supra), was with regard to the steps
taken by the Tea Board authorities in the year 2013 i.e., after the petitioners
had been promoted to the post of Assistant Director, Tea Development. The
said decision in Neerav Vashisht and Ors. (supra), were carried upon
appeal in the case of Debajit Borah & Ors. Vs. Tea Board, India & Ors.
Page No.# 18/19
F.M.A. No. 1957 of 2014, and the Division Bench of the High Court of
Calcutta vide judgment dated 14.12.2017, had dismissed the said writ appeal
inter alia by observing as under:
"In the absence of any By-laws framed under Section 50 of the said Act,
the Tea Board, in our considered view, is competent to take its decision in its
administrative side for regulating the service condition of its decision in its
administrative side for regulating the service condition of its employees and
applicability of such decision does not depend upon amendment of the Rules
of 1971 which per-see is not applicable to the employees appointed by the
Board."
33. The said observation of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Calcutta, in the considered view of this court, would not be applicable to the
facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the respondent Board in Paragraph-7
of its affidavit as filed in the present matter, extracted in the herein above,
categorically stated that the recruitment to the post of Assistant Director, Tea
Development in the Board was being so done by following the prescriptions
of eligibility criterias as prescribed in the Schedule annexed to the Tea Board
(amendment) by-laws 1981, till the enactment of the provisions of the Tea
board (Recruitment, Promotions and Conditions of Services of Officers and
Staff) by-laws 2015. Accordingly, in view of the categorical contentions made
by the respondents in the present proceedings, the decisions of the High
Court of Calcutta, relied upon by the respondents, would not have any
application to the issues arising in the present proceedings.
Page No.# 19/19
34. In the view of the above discussions and conclusions reached by this
Court herein above, it is held that the Office Memorandum bearing No.
139/2013 dated 01.07.2013, cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same
stands set aside.
35. Further, the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities, in the
month of June, 2013 stands interfered with, to the extent of 03 posts of
Assistant Director of Tea Development as advertised vide the said
advertisement, which are held by the petitioners herein.
36. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition
stands allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
