Dismissed

Sanjay Shankar Pandey and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2022WRIA/45156/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the inclusion of an unposted officer, retired compulsorily due to pending inquiry, in the seniority list. Ruling that his prior notification of appointment established his rank, the court rejected claims for replacement.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed and the seniority list was upheld.

Sanjay Shankar Pandey and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 16.8.2022 Delivered on 20.9.2022

¶3

Court No. - 39

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45156 of 2016 Petitioner :- Sanjay Shankar Pandey And 2 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chaturvedi,Abhinav Gaur,Prabhakar Dwivedi,Siddharth Nandan,Vibhu Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Manish Goyal,Manish Goyal

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

(Delivered by Justice Sunita Agarwal)

¶7

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish Mishra learned Advocate for the respondent-High Court and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶8

The present writ petition had been filed seeking for quashing of the seniority list dated 6.4.2016 of the officers in the Higher Judicial Services for the recruitment year 2007. The writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 8.4.2019 passed by this Court holding therein that the seniority list under challenge had been upheld by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3355 of 2018 vide judgment and order dated 28^th March, 2018.

¶9

On the challenge to the judgment and order dated 8.4.2019 passed in the instant petition, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7178 of 2021, vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2021, had upheld the decision of this Court on the finality attached to the seniority list. However, a dispute was raised by the petitioners/appellants therein that one officer named as Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was wrongly included in the seniority list, as he was never posted in the regular H.J.S. cadre pursuant to the notification issued under Rule 22(1) of the Rules, 1975, on account of some enquiry pending against him and later he was retired compulsorily on 3.3.2013. The only issue raised by the petitioners before the Apex Court about the placement

¶10

¶11

of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav in the seniority list, was remitted back for consideration while disposing of the Civil Appeal by the Apex Court.

¶12

Relevant observations of the Apex Court on the question remitted for our consideration are to be noted hereunder:-

¶13

“The only question thus, is whether Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav should not have been included in the seniority list since the Notification under Rule 22(1) of the Rules, 1975 was issued. Shri Yadav was at serial No. 183. Before any posting order could be given to him, on account of some inquiry pending against him, he was retired compulsorily on 03.03.2013. The question thus, is whether the appellant is entitled to a placement instead of Shri Yadav.

¶14

We thus, set aside the impugned order to the aforesaid extent and remit the matter for consideration on that aspect alone.

¶15

The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.”

¶16

It was vehemently argued by Sri Anoop Trivedi learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that though in the notification of promotion dated 11.8.2008 under Rule 22(1), the name of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav finds place at Serial No. 183, but in view of the decision of the Administrative Committee dated 4.12.2008, Sri Yadav was never given appointment in the regular H.J.S. cadre. He was directed to continue in the Ex-cadre post under Rule 22(3) of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975, till the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry.

¶17

The resolution of the Administrative Committee dated 4.12.2008 has been placed before us to submit that the order of promotion of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav under Rule 22(1) of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975 was never given effect to. It was argued that Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav though was recommended for promotion but his promotion proposal was not given effect to by the Administrative Committee. Further, the representation moved by Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav for his promotion under Rule 22(1) of U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975 was rejected by the Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 31.5.2012. Later by the

¶18

¶19

order dated 1.3.2013, Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 56(C) of the Fundamental Rules while working in the stopgap arrangement under Rule 22(3) of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975. The result is that Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was never born in the regular cadre of the Additional District and Sessions Judge.

¶20

The period of service spent by Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav against excadre post cannot be computed under Rule 26 of the Rules for preparation of the seniority list.

¶21

It is vehemently argued that the resolution dated 4.12.2008 of the Administrative Committee in respect of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav had crystallized the issue that promotion proposal of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was never given effect to. He was never allowed to become the member of service as he was not allowed to join the post in the regular cadre of Higher Judicial Service.

¶22

The contention is that in the subsequent notification dated 10.12.2008 issued by this Court, published in the Official Gazette dated 11.4.2009, the name of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was not notified by the High Court after application of roster in accordance with Rule 22(2) of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975. The resolution dated 31.5.2012 of the Administrative Committee further made it clear that Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was never given promotion under Rule 22(1) of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975. Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was compulsorily retired as Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ex-cadre) by the Full Court of this Hon'ble Court which fact further makes it clear that he had never been appointed to the cadre of Higher Judicial Services and had never become the member of the services under Rule 22 (1) and (2) of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975.

¶23

The second limb of argument of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1975 provides that the Governor shall make appointments to the service on the occurrence of

¶24

¶25

substantive vacancy by taking candidates from the lists mentioned in the Rules 18, 20 and 21 in accordance with roster. The sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 has further been subjected to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 22, which provides that appointment to the service shall be made on the basis of roster system. From the aforesaid provisions, it is quite evident that for appointment to the service under Rule 25, both the exercise as contemplated under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 22 of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975 are sine qua non .

¶26

As far as the instant case, the notification dated 11.8.2008 for approval of promotion proposal of the candidates was issued as an office memorandum observing that the Governor had accorded approval to the promotion of the persons, whose names found mentioned in the said office memorandum to the U.P. Higher Judicial Services, subject to the conditions mentioned in paragraphs '2' and ‘3’ of the said memorandum.

¶27

The paragraphs '2' and '3' of the notification dated 11.8.2008 have been placed before us to submit that the appointment/posting of the officers in the said memorandum was subject to the conditions/restrictions prescribed therein. Paragraph '3' of the order had clearly mandated that the roster would be applied by the High Court subsequently and also that the appointments would be subject to the vigilance enquiry, if any. In the subsequent notification dated 10.12.2008 issued by the High Court, the name of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav did not find place which clearly demonstrates that on due application of roster as contemplated under subrule (2) of Rule 22, the name of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was excluded as his promotion proposal vide office memorandum dated 11.8.2008 was not given effect to by the Administrative Committee in its resolution dated 4.12.2008. Further, the reading of the notification dated 11.8.2008 itself makes it clear that the said notification was subject to the application of roster by the High Court and posting order was subject to clearance from a vigilance enquiry. The stand taken by the High Court in the meeting of Selection and Appointment Committee as set out in paragraph ‘172’ of the

¶28

¶29

report was taken note by the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 30^th November, 2021 while remitting the matter for consideration on the aspect of inclusion of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav in the seniority list.

¶30

Paragraph '172' of the report of Seniority Committee, as noted in the decision of the Apex Court, has been placed before us to submit that the conclusion drawn by the Committee for inclusion of the name of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav in the seniority list merely on the basis of the appointment notification dated 11^th August, 2008 issued by the State Government was an error committed in ignorance of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975. In fact, no post was reserved for Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav and it was categorical stand of the High Court that Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav will continue as an Additional District Judge (Ex-cadre) as his promotion proposal was kept in abeyance. The decision for inclusion of his name in the seniority list cannot be sustained. The seniority list dated 6.4.2016 is required to be amended to the above extent by deleting the name of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav from the said list and placing the petitioners below Sri Gulab Singh-I and above 41 direct recruitees of Higher Judicial Service, Recruitment year 2007.

¶31

Sri Ashish Mishra learned Advocate for respondent-High Court invited attention of the Court to Rule 26 of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975 to submit that the seniority of the officers appointed in the service has to be determined in accordance with the order of appointment in the service under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1975.

¶32

Placing the notification dated 11^th August, 2008, it is submitted that the said notification was issued by the State Government, both under rule 22(1) and Rule 22(2) of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975 on the recommendation of the High Court dated 29.7.2008. The High Court notification dated 10.12.2008 published in the Official Gazette on 11^th April, 2009 was under Rule 25 of the notification of postings/placements of the officers appointed in the service. With the aid of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3355 of 2018 connected with other

¶33

¶34

appeals dated 28^th March, 2018, it was submitted that in the peculiar facts of the recruitment concerned, the roster system was not applied as per rule 22(2) of the Rules, 1975 and the seniority of the officers promoted by the notification dated 11^th August, 2008 was determined as per the said notification of their appointment.

¶35

The contention, thus, is that the submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that roster was applied by the High Court in terms of Rule 22(2) after issuance of the notification of appointment dated 11^th August, 2008, is incorrect. Further contention that the notification dated 10.12.2008 published in the Official Gazette dated 11^th April, 2009, therefore, excluded the name of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav, who according to the petitioners had never been appointed in the service or has not been born in the cadre is without basis.

¶36

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, before adverting to the arguments of the learned Advocates for the parties, it is apt to note the relevant provisions of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975.

¶37

Rules 22, 25 and 26, relevant for our purpose are required to be noted hereunder:-

¶38

“ 22. Appointment - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the Governor shall, on receipt from the Court of the list mentioned in Rules 18, 20 and 21 make appointments to the service on the occurrence of substantive vacancies by taking candidates from the list in the order in which they stand in the respective lists in accordance with the roster.

¶39

(2) Appointments to the service shall be made on the basis of roster system, the first post shall be filled from the list of promotees, the second post shall be filled up by direct recruit, the third and fourth posts shall be filled up from the list of promotees and fifth post shall be filled up by the candidate selected strictly on merit through LDCE (and so on) according to the roster as prescribed in Appendix '1', which will cease to become operative on the date the respective three streams achieve their full allotted vacancies. Thereafter on account of arising any vacancy in quota of respective stream the same could be filled-up from the same stream of which vacancy arises;

¶40

Provided that while following the roster at no point of time the respective percentage of posts filled from direct recruit and LDCE shall

¶41

¶42

exceed 25% and 10% of the strength of service. In case the percentage is exceeding the allotted quota, in such eventuality the promotee shall occupy the vacancy which would have gone to the direct recruit or LDCE, had not the same been in excess of 25% and 10% respectively of either of the two.

¶43

(3) In the eventuality of delay in making appointment under subrule(1) and further if exigency of service so requires, the Governor may, in consultation with the Court, make short term appointment as a stopgap arrangement from amongst the promotees, in the vacancy in these services till the appointments are made under sub-rules (1) and (2):

¶44

Provided that the period of service spent by the promotees on a short term appointment to the service as a stopgap arrangement shall not be computed under Rule 26.

¶45

25. Appointment and confirmation to be notified in Gazette – All appointments and confirmations under these rules shall be notified in the State Gazette.

¶46

26 - Seniority - (1) Seniority of the officers appointed in the Service shall be determined in accordance with the order of appointment in the Service under sub rules (1) and (2) of Rule 22 of these rules.

¶47

(2) Seniority of members of the service who have been confirmed in the service prior to the commencement of these rules shall be as has been determined by the order of the Government as amended from time to time.”

¶48

A perusal of Rule 22 indicates that the appointment to the service is made by the Governor on receipt of the recommendation of the High Court in the order in which they stand in the respective list of direct recruitees, promotees and selected on the basis of merit through a limited competitive examination as per Rules 18, 20 and 21. For appointment to the service, the procedure of application of roster system has been provided in Rule 22(2) which states that first post shall be filled from the list of promotees, the second by direct recruitees, the third and fourth post again shall be filled up from the list of promotees and fifth post shall be filled up by the candidates selected strictly on merits through limited competitive examination and so on according to the roster provided in Appendix-I of the U.P.H.J.S. Rules, 1975.

¶49

As per Rule 26, the seniority of the officers appointed in service shall be determined in accordance with the order of appointment in the Service under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules, 1975.

¶50

¶51

The instant case is an offshoot of the dispute relating to seniority of H.J.S. officers, determined by the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 28^th March, 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 3355 of 2018. There is a long history of seniority dispute of the members of the H.J.S. which is required to be noted in brief herein.

¶52

In pursuance to the judgment of the Apex court in All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others¹ , amendment in the Rules was carried out and notified on 9^th January, 2007. The principles of suitability test and roster system were introduced by way of the said amendment. In absence of determination of vacancies for the period from the year 2002 till 2007, neither the promotees could be given appointments in spite of availability of vacancies and eligibility nor direct recruitment could be made. The recruitment for the said period was initiated only in the year 2007. The suitability test for the purposes of promotion was held on 10^th February, 2008. The final list of selected direct recruitees was approved by the Full Court on 12^th July, 2008. In absence of suitability test, which was conducted only in the year 2008, the promotees could not be given promotion earlier. The direct recruitees selected after 2007 could not be given seniority prior to their joining.

¶53

It was opined by the Selection and Appointment Committee that the seniority for direct recruitees by applying the rota system would have operated unfairly for the promotees. The Committee appointed by the High Court for the purpose had considered the issue of determination of vacancies and fixation of seniority of 2007 and 2009 recruitees and opined that the promotees, who were eligible and were officiating against the available vacancies in promotion quota could not be recruited only because of non-holding of the suitability test, which was held for the first time in the year 2008, were entitled to en-bloc seniority without rota system. The direct recruitees could not be given seniority for the period prior to their appointments. The said recommendation was approved by 1 (2002) 4 SCC 247

¶54

¶55

the Full Court. The direct recruitees as well as the promotees aggrieved by the determination of their seniority challenged the determination in a writ petition seeking for quashing of the final seniority lists dated 23^rd September, 2015 and 6^th April, 2016 (which were also subject matter of challenge in the present petition in the first round).

¶56

The High Court therein had turned down the request of the promotees to claim promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancies. It was further observed that there has been complete non-adherence to the quota-rota rule and the determination of seniority in accordance thereof in terms of Rules 22 and 26 of 1975 Rules. The determination of seniority was held to be contrary to Rule 26 of the Rules, 1975 which envisages placement of the appointees in terms of Rule 22(1) and (2) according to the roster and not en-bloc placement on the basis of the date of appointment. The matter travelled to the Apex Court and while allowing the appeal of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 28^th March, 2018, it was observed by the Apex Court that there was no doubt that the quota-rota was mandatory requirement of the Rules but in the peculiar facts situation, the quota-rota rule could not be applied in absence of determination of vacancies and for the fact that suitability test could not be held till 2008, no promotion could be given despite availability of vacancies. If rota rule was applied, it would work serious prejudice to the promotees. It was further opined that the Rules had to be given pragmatic interpretation and applying the practical interpretation of the rule, it was held that the seniority given to the promotees above the direct recruitees en-bloc, on the basis of the date of appointment, without following the rotation principle had to be upheld. The interference made by the High Court in the decision of the Committee approved by the Full Court was set aside.

¶57

In the first round of the decision in the present petition, considering the said decision, the writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order

¶58

¶59

dated 8.4.2019. Before the Apex Court, the petitioners herein had argued that one Ravindra Nath Yadav who was placed at serial no. 183 of the notification of appointment of promotees dated 11^th August, 2008 was never appointed on the regular post. It was argued that since Ravindra Nath Yadav was not given any posting order on account of the enquiry pending against him and further he was retired compulsorily on 3.3.2013, his inclusion in the seniority list prepared under Rule 26 was illegal. The matter was, therefore, remitted only on the limited question on the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to placement instead of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav. The question for consideration before us, thus, is whether the name of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav should have been included in the seniority list prepared under Rule 26 of the Rules, 1975 of the promotees who were appointed by way of promotion in the recruitment year 2007, pursuant to the notification dated 11^th August, 2008.

¶60

To answer this question, in view of the above noted facts, it is evident that the roster system was not applied in the promotion in question. The recommendations of the High Court vide letter dated 29.7.2008 were accepted by the Governor and the notification dated 11^th August, 2008 of the said approval was issued both under rule 22(1) and 22(2) for promotion of the recommendees.

¶61

The paragraph '3' of the notification dated 11^th August, 2008 though provided that the placement of the officers shall be determined by the High Court later as per the roster of promotees and direct recruitees under rules for the H.J.S. Recruitment 2007, but it is evident from the facts noted above, the said roaster was not applied in the peculiar facts situation of the selection in question. The second part of condition in paragraph '3' of the notification dated 11^th August, 2008 further was that the appointment of all judicial officers would be subject to pending vigilance enquiry, if any.

¶62

¶63

With regard to the officer namely Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav, a vigilance enquiry was initiated and the report was submitted on 14.3.2008. On the said report, the Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 2.7.2008 had resolved to initiate disciplinary action and the charge sheet was issued on 14.8.2008. The posting notification dated 10^th December, 2008 of all promotees and direct recruitees was notified in the Official Gazette dated 11^th April, 2009. The name of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was not included in the said notification as the Administrative Committee in its meeting dated 4.12.2008 had resolved that Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav, placed at serial no. 183 in the list of promotees under Rule 22(1), be continued under Rule 22(iii) of the Rules, 1975 till the conclusion of disciplinary enquiry against him. It was resolved that the promotion proposal in his regard be not given effect to until further orders. It is evident that the enquiry instituted with the charge sheet dated 14.8.2008 had not been brought to its logical end. Sri Yadav was compulsorily retired by the notification dated 7.2.2013 issued under Rule 56(C) of the Fundamental Rules. The said compulsory retirement was made on the recommendation of the Screening Committee which was accepted by the Full Court in its meeting held on 2.2.2013. The resolution of the Screening Committee dated 22.1.2013 recommending compulsory retirement of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav records that the departmental enquiry had not been finalized. The Committee after taking into consideration the overall service record of the officer recommended that the officer be compulsorily retired and the departmental enquiry pending against the officer be dropped.

¶64

From the above facts, it is evident that Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was not given posting on account of the decision of the Administrative Committee to initiate departmental enquiry and later during pendency of the departmental enquiry, he was allowed to work in the Ex-cadre under Rule 22(3) of the Rules.

¶65

The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is

¶66

¶67

that the Administrative Committee in its meeting dated 4.2.2008 had resolved that the promotion proposal of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav be not given effect to, which would give rise to the only conclusion that Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was never appointed under Rule 22(1) and 22(2) and as such was never born in the cadre.

¶68

This submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is found misconceived, inasmuch as, the notification dated 11^th August, 2008 issued under Rule 22(1) and 22(2) is the notification of appointment of the officer namely Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav whose name was found therein at serial no. 183. The said notification was issued subject to the condition that appointment/posting be given to the officer subject to vigilance enquiry, if any. The Administrative Committee decided not to give posting to the said officer due to pendency of the departmental enquiry, but that fact by itself does not obliterate the notification of the appointment of the said officer dated 11^th August, 2008. The notification of appointment of Sri Yadav was not cancelled, recalled or varied by the appointing authority. At the most, it can be said that the posting of the officer Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav in the regular cadre of H.J.S. was kept in abeyance till conclusion of the departmental enquiry. Had he been exonerated in the said enquiry, he would have got posting according to his position in the list of promotees notified on 11^th August, 2008.

¶69

The submission that the notification dated 11^th August, 2008 was only a promotion proposal and the appointment was to be made by the High Court, subject to the condition of the said notification is itself misdirected. The contention that since posting was not given, the officer was never born in the cadre of H.J.S. is wholly misconceived. The officer Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav was born in the cadre on the day his promotion proposal sent by the High Court with the letter dated 29.7.2008, was approved by the Governor and the notification of appointment under Rules 22(1) and 22(2) was issued on 11^th August, 2008. The seniority list is based on the order of appointment in the notification dated 11^th August,

¶70

¶71

2008 as per Rule 26 of the H.J.S. Rules, 1975.

¶72

As regards the compulsory retirement of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav is concerned, the same has no bearing on his seniority in the list prepared under Rule 26 of the Rules, 1975, based on his position in the notification dated 11^th August, 2008 issued under Rules 22(1) and 22(2) of the Rules, 1975. The obvious reason being that the compulsory retirement was a subsequent event which had occurred on account of the resolution of the Screening Committee, based on the assessment of his service record of working as Additional District Judge in the Ex-cadre post under Rule 22(3) of the Rules, 1975. In any case, the compulsory retirement had nothing to do with the departmental enquiry due to pendency of which Sri Yadav was not given posting as Additional District and Sessions Judge. In the resolution of the Screening Committee itself, it was recorded that the Departmental enquiry had not been concluded and the same had been dropped while passing the resolution of compulsory retirement of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav by the Full Court.

¶73

For the aforesaid, no merit can be found in the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners about the position of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav in the seniority list prepared under Rule 26 of the Rules, 1975, wherein the officer was rightly placed in accordance with his position in the notification dated 11^th August, 2008 issued under Rules 22(1) and 22(2) of the Rules, 1975.

¶74

For the aforesaid, our answer to the question “whether the petitioners are entitled to a placement instead of Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav in the seniority list is in “Negative”.

¶75

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶76

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Sunita Agarwal,J.)

¶77

Order Date :- 20.9.2022 Brijesh

¶78

Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2022.09.21 17:59:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Shankar Pandey and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Shankar Pandey and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Yadav and 53 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Garg Vs Sachiv Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P. Allahabad and Another

Ajeet Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others