Allahabad High Court
Amod Kumar vs Director, Training And Employment, Up, ... on 5 January, 2022
Author: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1 of 2022 Appellant :- Amod Kumar Respondent :- Director, Training And Employment, U.P., Rozgar Bhawan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Lucknow and others Counsel for Appellant :- Amita Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
(Per Subhash Vidyarthi J.)
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Amitabh Rai, Advocate, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. By means of the instant Special Appeal filed under Chapter-VIII, Rule-5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the Appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 2453 (Service Single) of 2008 (Amod Kumar vs. Director Training and Employment, Lucknow and 03 others).
3. On 08.01.2006, an advertisement was issued by the Director, Training and Employment, Uttar Pradesh inviting applications for selection on 11 posts of Instructor in the Trade of Mechanic (Tractor).
4. The eligibility qualification mentioned in the advertisement was as follows: -
(1) Having passed Intermediate Examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Board or any other examination recognized by the Government as its equivalent, (2) a certificate issued by NCVT in the concerned trade or the principles of teaching module in trade or a Diploma in the Trade issued by the Council for Technical Education or any other Institution recognized by the State Government and (3) a certificate under regular draft instructor training scheme of one year duration; or the principles of teaching module in trade not having facilities for instructors training (necessary practical will be provided after the appointment within three years) and (3) a minimum of two years' experience in an industry or a training/ teaching institution either before or after obtaining instructor training.
5. The petitioner applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement and on 03.02.2007, the respondent no.1 had issued a letter calling the appellant to appear for interview on 16.02.2007. The appellant claimed that he had appeared for interview on 16.07.2007 but no selection was made as, according to the respondent no.1, no candidate was found to be eligible for being appointed as Instructor in the Trade of Mechanic (Tractor).
6. In March 2008, the respondent No. 1 issued a fresh advertisement inviting applications for selection to 11 posts of Instructors in Trade Mechanic Tractor.
7. The appellant-petitioner did not apply in pursuance of the said advertisement and he filed Writ Petition No. 2453 (S/S) of 2008 in this Court challenging the said advertisement seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider his appointment in furtherance of the earlier advertisement dated 18.12.2006 mainly on the ground that the petitioner holds the eligibility qualification mandated by this Court in the judgment dated 08-08-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1822 of 2004 - Upendra Narain Singh versus State of U.P. [2006 (7) ADJ 178], which in turn has to be read in the qualifications prescribed in Rule 8 of the Service Rules of 1991 as amended with effect from 08-08-2003 and the qualification no. 3 prescribed in Rule 8 of the Rules of 1991 is not only misconceived, but is beyond the authority of the respondents no. 1 and 2.
8. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment in Upendra Narain Singh (Supra), the appellant-petitioner has submitted that when this Court had issued a direction to the State Government "to advertise, hold and complete the selection process on all the vacancies within a period of four months from the date of delivery of this judgment.", the respondents had no right to cancel the selection process and it had to be completed as directed in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08-08-2006.
9. In support of his contention that the Craft Instructor Certificate (CTI) awarded to the appellant-petitioner by the NCVT for the trade of Farm Mechanic includes trades of Tractor Mechanic and Agriculture Mechanic Machinery, the appellant-petitioner has annexed a letter dated 26.11.2007 written by the Director, Central Higher Training Institute (ATI) Ludhiana to the Director Training and Employment, U.P. as Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition, stating that "मैं प्रमाणित करता हूं कि अनुदेशक प्रशिक्षण शिल्पकार फॉर्म मैकेनिक ट्रेड से (सी.टी.आई.) कराया जाता है । ट्रेड फॉर्म मैकेनिक, ट्रैक्टर मैकेनिक, एग्री. मैकेनिक मशीनरी के प्रशिक्षार्थी को प्रशिक्षण दिया जाता है। तीनों ट्रेडों की अनुदेशक प्रशिक्षण शिल्पकार (सी.टी.आई.) फॉर्म मैकेनिक से प्रमाण पत्र दिया जाता है । याची गण का प्रमाण पत्र सत्य जारी किया गया है ।"
10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it was pleaded that mere calling for the interview does not create any right. The petitioner-appellant was not having the requisite qualification as prescribed in the amended Instructor Service Rules and as mentioned in the advertisement and for this reason though the appellant-petitioner was called for interview but no selections were made.
11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Director General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi and Director Advanced Training Institute, National Council for Vocational Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Gill Road, Ludhiana, it was stated that NCVT in its 31st meeting held in November 1995 recommended a separate stream of instructors for theory subjects and practical classes with enhanced qualifications and revised norms with revised pay scale. The above recommendations were accepted by Government of India for its implementation and, therefore, all the State Governments had been advised to amend their recruitment rules and appoint the Vocational instructors with enhanced qualification and revised norms vide letter dated 24th July 1996.
12. Regarding the aforesaid letter dated 26.11.2007 relied by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter affidavit that it is false that the Director, Advanced Training Institute, Gill Road, Ludhiana had written a letter dated 26.11.2007 to the Directorate of Training and Employment, Rozgar Bhavan, Lucknow as no such letter was issued by the office of the Director, Advanced Training Institute, Gill Road, Ludhiana. The letter dated 26.11.2007 contained as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition submitted by the appellant-petitioner was false and fabricated document. The said letter had neither been signed by the official respondent nor had it been issued to the opposite party No. 1. In this way, the letter dated 26.11.2007 was a forged, fraudulent and fabricated document.
13. Replying to the pleadings of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that by merely by being called for interview, the appellant-petitioner does not get any indefeasible right for being selected, the appellant-petitioner has stated that once a candidate has submitted his application in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement and the candidate concerned has been called for the interview in recognition of the application of the candidate having been found in order, the prospective employer is estopped from disputing the qualification of the candidate concerned. It is only when the certificate/testimonial given by the candidate concerned is found to be fake or not genuine that the candidature of an applicant is liable to be cancelled.
14. The advertisement dated 18-12-2006 and the second advertisement issued in March 2008, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 to the Writ Petition respectively, state that the same were issued in compliance of the order dated 08-08-2006 issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1822 of 2004 Upendra Narain Singh versus State of U. P. [2006 (7) ADJ 178]. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the respondents were obliged to complete the selection process in compliance with the aforesaid judgment of this Court and by not completing the selection process, they have violated the order passed by this Court.
15. By means of the judgment and order dated 30-11-2021, the Hon'ble Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the appointing authority or the employer has the right to cancel the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued earlier and to re-advertise the posts. Merely by appearing for the interview, the petitioner did not get any indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Instructor Mechanic (Tractor). The appellant-petitioner had the opportunity of participating in the selection process held pursuant to the subsequent advertisement issued in the year 2007 but he chose not to do so. In the Writ petition challenging the advertisement issued in the year 2007, no relief can be granted at this distant point of time, particularly keeping in view the fact that the petitioner did not have any indefeasible right for appointment merely on the ground that he had faced the interview.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has sought to assail the judgment dated 30-11-2021 on the ground that the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to take into consideration the judgment dated 08.08.2006 passed by this Court in Upendra Narain Singh versus State of U.P. (Supra), paragraph No. 34 whereof is as follows:-
"34. The State Government is directed, in addition, and in modification to the direction issued by Lucknow Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 05.3.2003, in Writ Petition No. 6565 (SS) of 2001, Kalyan Rai v. State of U.P. and Ors. to advertise, hold and complete the selection process on all the vacancies within a period of four months from the date of delivery of this judgment. Now since directions have to be issued for fresh advertisement for these vacancies and all those vacancies, which may have arisen subsequently, the rights of those candidates, who have obtained these higher/ teaching qualifications as recommended by the Central Government and provided in the rules by the 2nd Amendment to the Rules of 1991, on 08.08.2003 cannot be ignored. It is as such further directed that all those candidates, who have obtained qualifications upto the date of fresh advertisement shall also be considered for selections and that all those candidates, who were within the age limit on the last date of receiving application in pursuance of advertisement dated 20.8.2003, shall also be eligible to apply for selections in pursuance of the fresh advertisement."
17. A perusal of the judgment in Upendra Narain Singh (Supra) reveals that prior to the year 1991 the service conditions of the Vocational Instructors were regulated by the Government Orders and Administrative Instructions. Then the State Government framed U. P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 1991 (In short ''the Rules of 1991') which replaced those orders and provided for, amongst other, the qualifications and method of recruitment. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1991 provides for recruitment through U.P. Public Service Commission on the basis of competitive examination and interview. The rules were amended in 1994 by 1st Amendment to these rules providing for source of recruitment through the Subordinate Services Selection Commission, under the Rules known as U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998, read with U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment to Group 'C' Posts of Technical Nature Or For Which Specific Qualifications are Prescribed (Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission), Rules, 2001.
18. The National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) made recommendations to the Central Government to enhance the qualifications required for the post of Vocational Instructors in Industrial Training Institutes. The NCVT proposed that for Vocational Instructors teaching, Theory including Workshop, Calculation, Science and Engineering Drawing, the candidate should possess apart from the minimum academic qualifications of 10+2 system of education, three years diploma in appropriate branch of engineering from recognized institutions and in addition, the teaching qualification namely Certificate under Draft Instructor Training Scheme (one year course) or should have successfully completed minimum two modules of teaching methodology under Draft Instructor Training Programme on module pattern, or should have passed one year course from Technical Teachers Training Institute (TTTI) under Ministry of Human Resource Development.
19. The NCVT further proposed that for Vocational Instructor (Practical) apart from the academic qualification of 10+2 system of education, the candidate should possess technical qualification of NTC/CAC for Trade; (1) a certificate under regular draft instructor training scheme of one year duration; or (2) the principles of teaching module in trade not having facilities for instructors training, necessary practical be provided after the appointment within three years; and (3) a minimum of two years' experience in an industry or a training/ teaching institution either before or after obtaining instructor training.
20. The recommendations of NCVT, were accepted by the Central Government and by letter dated 24.7.1996 of Director General/ Joint Secretary (DGE & I), Ministry of Labour, Government of India, the Central Government, issued directions to all Secretaries of the State Governments/ UT Administration (dealing with Draftsman Training Scheme), for necessary amendments in recruitment rules.
21. In the meanwhile 'Prashikshan Mitra Yojana' was introduced by issuing a circular dated 31.8.2000, initially for the financial year 2000-01 for appointment of 'Guest Speakers' on honorarium basis on contract. On the expiry of their fixed term, the 'Guest Speakers' appointed on contract basis under the scheme filed writ petitions with the prayer to continue them and to regularize their services. The writ petitions were clubbed and heard together with leading Writ Petition No. 6565 (SS) of 2001, Kalyan Rai v. State of U.P. All the writ petitions were dismissed by means of a judgment dated 05.3.2003 and a direction was issued to the Department of Industries, Government of U.P., the administrative department, to hold selections within a period of four months by making advertisement, if the selections were not earlier advertised.
22. The Government of Uttar Pradesh accepted the recommendations of the NCVT and the Central Government and amended the Rules of 1991 by 2nd Amendment notified on 08.8.2003 and advertised the vacancies on 20.8.2003 inviting applications from the candidates possessing the higher teachers training qualifications provided in the amended rules. However, after applications were received, the State Government cancelled the advertisement by issuing a notice dated 29-09-2003.
23. Thereafter State Government again amended the Rules of 1991 by the 3rd Amendment to the Rules of 1991 notified on 09.12.2003, deleting enhanced teaching qualifications, directed by the Central Government on recommendations of the National Council of Vocational Training. A fresh advertisement was issued on 13.12.2003 inviting applications for 742 vacancies of Instructors existing in ITI's in 34 Trades.
24. In Upendra Narain Singh (Supra), under challenge was to the 3rd Amendment to the U.P. Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 1991 notified on 09.12.2003, deleting the higher teaching qualifications, introduced in the rules by the 2nd Amendment vide notification dated 08.08.2003, for the post of Vocational Instructors (Trade, Theory, Workshop, Calculation, Science, Engineering and Drawing) and Vocational Instructor (Practical) in the Industrial Training Institutes (in short ITI's) in U.P. and this Court held as follows: -
"The State Government having acted upon the directions of the Central Government and amended the rules, was not competent to again amend the rules lowering the higher teaching qualifications and making them preferential. The State Government rightly understood its legal obligations and the constitutional scheme. Having accepted the position, the State Government acted grossly illegally and arbitrarily in amending the rules by the 3rd Amendment, in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, The Court takes judicial notice of the fact in the State of U.P. the teaching standards in all the educational institutions are falling gradually. In order to improve these standards, the national level teaching institutions have been established offering higher teaching qualifications and the Central Government is insisting the State Government to appoint only such teachers, who have higher and specific teaching qualifications. The candidates possessing such higher teaching qualifications have legitimate expectation to be considered for appointment on teaching posts. In case the State Government allows the persons having lower teaching qualifications to hold the posts, the rights of candidates having higher teaching qualifications will be violated. It will give rise to invidious discrimination and violate their constitutional right of equality before law.
The amendment in Rule 8 by the U.P. Industrial Training Institute (Instructor) (3rd Amendment) Service Rules, 2003, is thus held to be violative to the Constitutional Scheme of distribution of legislative powers, as also Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions challenging the advertisement dated 13.12.2003 are thus liable to be allowed and the advertisement dated 13.12.2003 is consequently quashed."
25. Finally this Court issued the following directions: -
"The State Government is directed, in addition, and in modification to the direction issued by Lucknow Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 05.3.2003, in writ petition No. 6565 (SS) of 2001, Kalyan Rai v. State of U.P. and Ors. to advertise, hold and complete the selection process on all the vacancies within a period of four months from the date of delivery of this judgment. Now since directions have to be issued for fresh advertisement for these vacancies and all those vacancies, which may have arisen subsequently, the rights of those candidates, who have obtained these higher/ teaching qualifications as recommended by the Central Government and provided in the rules by the 2nd Amendment to the Rules of 1991, on 08.08.2003 cannot be ignored. It is as such further directed that all those candidates, who have obtained qualifications upto the date of fresh advertisement shall also be considered for selections and that all those candidates, who were within the age limit on the last date of receiving application in pursuance of advertisement dated 20.8.2003, shall also be eligible to apply for selections in pursuance of the fresh advertisement."
26. The position which emerges from the judgment in Upendra Narain Singh (Supra) is that the NCVT had proposed that for Vocational Instructor (Practical) apart from the academic qualification of 10+2 system of education the candidate should possess technical qualification of NTC/CAC for Trade; (1) a certificate under regular draft instructor training scheme of one year duration; or (2) the principles of teaching module in trade not having facilities for instructors training, necessary practical be provided after the appointment within three years; and (3) a minimum of two years' experience in an industry or a training/ teaching institution either before or after obtaining instructor training. The recommendations of NCVT, were accepted by the Central Government and the Central Government issued directions to all Secretaries of the State Governments/UT Administration for necessary amendments in recruitment rules. The Government of Uttar Pradesh accepted the recommendations and amended the Rules of 1991 by 2nd Amendment notified on 08.8.2003. However, thereafter the 3rd amendment was made in the Rules deleting the requirement of higher qualification which was introduced by the 2nd Amendment and the third amendment was quashed by this Court in Upendra Narain Singh (Supra). Therefore, the eligibility requirement put in the Advertisement dated 18-12-2006 was as per the 2nd Amendment Rules as also as per the order passed in Upendra Narain Singh (Supra) and there is no illegality in it.
27. The appellant-petitioner next contended that he possesses the qualification of Craft Instructor's Certificate (CTI) awarded by NCVT in the trade of Farm Machinery, which according to him is an umbrella term which includes the trades of Farm Mechanic, Tractor Mechanic, Agriculture Mechanic Machinery and this has been certified by the Director, Central Higher Training Institute (ATI) Ludhiana to the Director Training and Employment, U.P. through his letter dated 26.11.2007 filed as Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition. In this regard firstly, we may state that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Director, Central Higher Training Institute, it has been stated that it is false that the Director, Advanced Training Institute, Gill Road, Ludhiana had written the letter dated 26.11.2007 to the Directorate of Training and Employment, Rozgar Bhavan, Lucknow as no such letter was issued by the office of the Director, Advanced Training Institute, Gill Road, Ludhiana. This letter dated 26.11.2007 contained as annexure No. 5 to the writ petition submitted by the appellant-petitioner is false and fabricated document. The said letter has neither been signed by the official respondent nor has it been issued to the opposite party No. 1. In this way, the letter dated 26.11.2007 is a forged, fraudulent and fabricated document. Therefore no benefit can be given to the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid letter.
28. Secondly, equivalence of qualifications for the purposes of employment, can be decided by the employer only, which in the present case is the State Government, and not by any other authority, including the Courts.
29. In District Collector and Chairman, Viziangaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appointment has to be made strictly as per terms of the advertisement and in case, the candidates who did not possess the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement were permitted to participate in the selection process, it would be a fraud with the Public and no Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. Paragraph No. 6 of the said report runs as follows:
"6. It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact."
30. In P.M. Latha and another v. State of Kerala and others, (2003) 3 SCC 541, as per the advertisement the candidates having educational qualification of Teachers Training Certificate (for short T.T.E.) were entitled to compete for the selection and seek appointment on the post of Teachers in Government Primary School. However, in the select list B.Ed. Candidates were also included. As a result of which the candidates possessing the qualification of T.T.C. were excluded. Repelling the arguments advanced on behalf of the successful candidates that B.Ed. qualification was a higher qualification than T.T.C. and therefore, the B.Ed. Candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the said post, the Apex Court in paragraph No. 13 of the said report has held as follows:
"13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot over-ride written or settled law. The division bench forgot that in extending relief on equity to B.Ed. candidates who were unqualified and yet allowed to compete and seek appointments contrary to the terms of the advertisement, it is not redressing the injustice caused to the appellants who were T.T.C. candidates and would have secured a better position in the Rank list to get appointment against the available vacancies, had B.Ed. candidates been excluded from the selections. The impugned judgment of the division bench is both illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. The T.T.C. candidates before us as appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. The impugned judgment of the division bench, therefore, deserves to be set aside and of the learned single judge restored."
31. Thus the respondents could complete the selection process only considering the eligibility qualifications mentioned in the advertisement itself and any deviation therefrom would vitiate the selection process. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that he was entitled to be selected as he possessed a Craft Instructor Certificate (CTI) for the trade of Farm Mechanic and that includes trades of Tractor Mechanic also, is liable to be rejected for the aforesaid reasons.
32. Now we come to the petitioner's next ground of challenge, which is that the fact that the petitioner was interviewed for the post of instructor in Govt. ITI, conferred upon the petitioner the right to be considered for appointment as instructor in the trade of Mechanic Tractor. In the judgment under challenge in this Appeal, the Hon'ble Single Judge has held that the appointing authority or the employer has the right to cancel the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued earlier and to re-advertise the posts. Merely by appearing for the interview, the petitioner did not get any indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Instructor Mechanic (Tractor). We find no error in this finding of the Hon'ble Single Judge.
33. In State v. Umesh Kumar, (2020) 10 SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to summarize the well settled law in this regard in the following words: -
"19. The real issue, however, is whether the respondents were entitled to a writ of mandamus. This would depend on whether they have a vested right of appointment. Clearly the answer to this must be in the negative. In Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh, this Court held that the mere inclusion of candidates in a selection list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment. The Court held: (SCC p. 26, para 4) "4. ... the High Court committed an error in proceeding on the basis that the respondent had got a vested right for appointment and that could not have been taken away by the subsequent change in the policy. It is settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer on such candidate any vested right to get an order of appointment. This position is made clear in para 7 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India which reads: (SCC pp. 50-51) ''7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab"
34. In the instant case, the petitioner had merely faced interview and the selection process had not even been completed. The respondents issued a fresh advertisement on the ground that they could not get candidates possessing the prescribed eligibility qualification in response to the earlier advertisement, which is a valid reason and which is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Therefore, the appellant-petitioner had no indefeasible right to be selected in pursuance of the earlier advertisement issued on 18-12-2006 and the contention of the petitioner in this regard is liable to be rejected.
35. The Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly held that the petitioner had the opportunity of participating in the selection process held pursuant to the subsequent advertisement issued in the year 2007 but he chose not to do so. In the Writ Petition challenging the advertisement issued in the year 2007, no relief can be granted at this distant point of time, particularly keeping in view the fact that the petitioner did not have any indefeasible right for appointment merely on the ground that he had faced the interview.
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Special Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
37. Accordingly, the Special Appeal is dismissed. Costs made easy.
Order Date :- 5.1.2022
Ashish pd./Jaswant
(Justice Subhash Vidyarthi) (Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya)