Dismissed

U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad v. Neena Chaturvedi

Allahabad HC22 May 2019SPLA/1494/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Full Bench judgment answering a reference on the nature of post office agency was followed. Since the full bench decided against the single judge's view, this intra-court appeal was disposed of by holding the single judge's opinion incorrect and dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition filed by petitioner-respondent stands dismissed; intra-court appeal disposed of on merits of underlying reference.

U.P. Public Service Commission… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1494 of 2009

¶3

Appellant :- U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad Respondent :- Neena Chaturvedi Counsel for Appellant :- Iqbal Ahmad Siddiqui,M.A. Qadeer Counsel for Respondent :- N.L. Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

¶5

Heard Sri I.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Anil Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri N.L. Pandey, learned counsel for respondents.

¶6

This intra-Court appeal has come up against an opinion expressed by Hon'ble Single Judge vide order dated 28.05.2009 expressing, that, a request when made by a body to sent a document by post, in such a case Post Office becomes an agent of addressee and otherwise view expressed by Division Bench judgments in Ram Autar Singh vs. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and others, 1987 UPLBEC 316; Anupam vs. Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad, Writ Petition No. 57508 of 2005 , decided on 04.10.2005 and Adil Khan vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 23152 of 2006 , decided on 05.05.2006 are not correct decisions and require reconsideration by a Larger Bench. Single Judge, therefore, in the operative part of order dated 28.05.2009 has directed the office to place record before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of Larger Bench.

¶7

Virtually, therefore, there was no judgment of learned Single Judge since expressing its doubt over correctness of three Division Bench judgments noticed above it has made a reference to Larger Bench. We are also informed that pursuant to that reference matter was examined by a Full Bench consisting of Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Dilip Gupta and Hon'ble Sanjay Misra, JJ. in Neena Chaturvedi vs. Public Service Commission, U.P. and others, 2010(9) ADJ 152. Full Bench has held:

¶8

(I) Judgments in Ram Autar Singh (supra) Anupam (supra) and Adil Khan (supra) are correct and in fact the learned Single Judge was bound by Division Bench judgments. Doctrine of per incurium was not applicable since other judgments which learned Single Judge has considered in order to make reference were considered in Adil Khan (supra) and, therefore, the judgment being a binding precedent, learned Single Judge ought not to have proceeded to direct a reference.

¶9

(II) Post Office is bound as an agent of Sender to enter to deliver it to the addressee.

¶10

(III) Reference itself was not maintainable but Court clarified law so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

¶11

Consequently, Full Bench answered reference in negative. The result thereof would be that writ petition ought to have been dismissed for taking a view against petitioner-respondents and in our view this intraCourt appeal itself ought not to have been filed since there was no judgment of learned Single Judge but only an opinion expressed on a point for making reference to Larger Bench.

¶12

Aforesaid Full Bench judgment in Neena Chaturvedi (supra) has further been followed by another Full Bench in Rajendra Patel vs. State of U.P. and another 2015(8) ADJ 219.

¶13

Be that as it may, since Larger Bench has taken a view against the opinion taken by learned Single Judge, following the same we dispose of this appeal by holding that opinion of learned Single Judge was not correct and, therefore, writ petition filed by petitioner-respondent stands dismissed.

¶14

Order Date : 22.05.2019 Manish Himwan/AK

U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad v. Neena Chaturvedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad v. Neena Chaturvedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kavita Yadav Vs C/M. C.K.I.C. and Others

Y.K. Mishra Vs Nagar Maha Palika

Smt. Shashi Srivastava Vs Rohit Kumar and Others

Tej Bal Singh and Others Vs Rajeev Shukla and Another

State of U.P. and Others Vs C/M Sri Bhagirathi Mharaj Purva Mdhyamik Vidyalaya

Mahesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. through Medical Secretary and Others