Allahabad High Court
Dr. Mahesh Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 14 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 207
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 03.02.2020 Delivered on 14.02.2020 Court No. - 85 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14118 of 2014 Petitioner :- Dr. Mahesh Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.L. Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri B.L. Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State functionaries.
2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24.01.2014, whereby respondent no. 3 rejected representation of petitioner seeking regularisation of his services and payment of salary.
3. Facts in brief are that one Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Jirauli Hari Singh, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as "Institution") is a recognised and aided educational Institution governed by provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
4. Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2/3 of LT Grade by Management of School, District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh granted approval for Academic Session 1970-71 on 17.02.1971. The said approval is on record as Annexure-1 to writ petition. As approval was only for a session, it came to an end in the year 1971 but petitioner continued and District Inspector of Schools on 17.04.1972 accorded approval for Session 1971-72, the same has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to writ petition.
5. It appears that petitioner applied for study leave on 01.07.1972 for period July 1972 to July, 1976 for doing Ph.d in Geography. According to petitioner, the same was sanctioned by Management without pay. It is further stated that on 03.08.1976, petitioner was allowed to resume his duty in the Institution on completing his Ph.d. He again on 06.08.1977 applied for leave from 06.08.1977 to 11.05.1978 for doing B.Ed training course, and the same was sanctioned by Management.
6. It was on 01.02.1978 that school came under grant-in-aid, but name of petitioner was not sent in the Managerial Return to district educational authorities. After completing his B.ed training, petitioner joined the Institution on 12.05.1978. Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2007 but was not paid salary.
7. It is further stated that then District Inspector of Schools on 21.02.1980, in reply to letter of Deputy Director of Education had stated that petitioner along with one Rejendra Pal Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher as per Rules and necessary approval was granted to their appointments. As services of petitioner was not being regularised, he approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 15422 of 1981 and this Court on 28.08.1991 allowed the writ petition and directed Deputy Director of Education (secondary) to pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity of hearing, which is on record as Annexure-5 to writ petition.
8. It appears that claim of petitioner was rejected on the ground that his engagement with Institution in question was earlier for the Session 1970-71 and, thereafter, for Session 1971-72, which came to an end on 30.06.1972, thus, leave sanctioned from July, 1972 to July, 1996 cannot be accepted as he was not a teacher in the Institution at the relevant point of time. The order dated 01.06.1995 was put to challenge through Writ-A No. 20667 of 1995. This Court on 06.02.2013 again remitted back the matter to Deputy Director of Education (second secondary), who on 24.01.2014 again rejected the claim of petitioner.
9. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that respondent no. 3 while deciding his claim had misread the provisions of Government Order dated 27.11.1976 issued in terms of U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Fifth) Order, 1976 and Government Order dated 16.08.1977 issued in terms of U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Seventh) Order, 1977 and Section 16GG of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
10. It was further submitted that respondent no. 2 has not taken note of communication dated 14.11.1979 and 21.02.1980 of District Inspector of Schools in response to letter dated 20.02.1979 and 14.02.1980 issued from office of Deputy Director of Education (secondary) Education Directorate, U.P. Allahabad and thus, he is entitled for regularisation of his services. It was also contended that petitioner who was initially appointed for Academic Session 1970-71 was accorded approval on 17.02.1971 and continued in service even after second approval was accorded on 17.04.1972.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that approval granted to petitioner on 17.02.1971 was for Session 1970-71 and, thereafter, on 17.04.1972 was for the Session 1971-72 and it came to an end on 30.06.1972, thus, it cannot be said that petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basic and the approval was granted, whereby he continued. It was also submitted that Institution came under grant-in-aid on 01.02.1978 and since Committee of Management of Institution had not sent the name to State Government, petitioner was not paid salary.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. Before proceeding to decide the issue in hand, a glance of relevant provisions of law is necessary for adjudication of the case.
14. Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is extracted hereasunder:
"16E. Procedure for selection of teachers and head of institutions. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Head of Institution and teachers of an institution shall be appointed by the Committee of Management in the manner hereinafter provided.
(2) Every post of Head of Institution or teacher of an institution shall except to the extent prescribed for being filled by promotion, be filled by direct recruitment after intimation of the vacancy to the Inspector and advertisement of the vacancy containing such particulars as may be prescribed, in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in the State.
(3) No person shall be appointed as Head of Institution or teacher in an institution unless he possesses the minimum qualification prescribed by the regulations :
Provided that a person who does not possess such qualification may also be appointed if he has been granted exemption by the Board having regard to his education, experience and other attainments.
(4) Every application for appointment as Head of Institution or teacher of an institution in pursuance of an advertisement published under sub-section (2) shall be made to the Inspector and shall be accompanied by such fee which shall be paid in such manner as may be prescribed] [* * *].
[(5) (i) After the receipt of applications under sub-section (4), the Inspector shall cause to be awarded, in respect of each such applications, quality-point marks in accordance with the procedure and principles prescribed, and shall thereafter, forward the applications to the Committee of Management.
(ii) The applications shall be dealt with, the candidates shall be called for interview and the meeting of the Selection Committee shall be held, in accordance with the Regulation.] (6) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list containing in order of preference the names as far as possible of three candidates for each post found by it to be suitable for appointment and shall communicate its recommendations together with such list to the Committee of Management.
(7) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (8), the Committee of Management shall, on receipt of the recommendations of the Selection Committee under sub-section (6), first offer appointment to the candidate given the first preference by the Selection Committee, and on his failure to join the post, to the candidate next to him in the list prepared by the Selection Committee under this section, and on the failure of such candidate also, to the last candidate specified in such list.
(8) The Committee of Management shall, where it does not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, refer the matter together with the reasons of such disagreement to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of appointment to the post of Head of Institution and to the Inspector in the case of appointment to the post of teacher of an Institution, and his decision shall be final.
(9) Where no candidate approved by the Selection Committee for appointment is available, a fresh selection shall be held in the manner laid down in this section.
(10) Where the State Government, in case of the appointment of Head of Institution, and the Director in the case of the appointment of teacher of an institution, is satisfied that any person has been appointed as Head of Institution or teacher, as the case may be, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the State Government or, as the case may be, the Director may, after affording an opportunity of being heard to such person, cancel such appointment and pass such consequential order as may be necessary.
(11) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, appointments in the case of a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or [by death, termination or otherwise] of an incumbent occurring during an educational session, may be made by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to the Selection Committee in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed :
[Provided that no appointment made under this sub-section shall, in any case, continue beyond the end of the educational session during which such appointment was made.]"
15. Section 16GG of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is extracted hereasunder:
"16-GG. Regularization of appointment of ad hoc teachers.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 16-E, 16-F and 16-FF, every teacher of an institution appointed between August 18, 1975 and September 30, 1976 (both dates inclusive) on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualifications or having been exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, with effect from the date of commencement of this section, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity, provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of his appointment up to the commencement of this section.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the period during which any break in service of teacher has occurred between the date of his ad hoc appointment and the date of commencement of this section for any reason not arising out of his misconduct or his own volition shall be disregarded :
Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as entitling such teacher to any pay or allowance for any such period of break in his service.
(2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of commencement of this section.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to-
(a) substantive appointment on any post if on the date of commencement of this section, such post has already been filled or selection for such post has already been made in accordance with this Act or the regulations made thereunder; or
(b) substantive appointment if such teacher was related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal or Headmaster of the institution concerned.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to be related to another if-
(a) they are members of a Hindu undivided family; or
(b) they are husband and wife; or
(c) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in the [Second Schedule.]"
16. Clause 3 of U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Fifth) Order, 1976 is extracted hereasunder:
"3. Where any person was appointed by the Committee of Management as a teacher on or before 30th June, 1975 for any period as a temporary measure with the approval or permission of the Inspector and such person has worked thereafter up to 15th November, 1976 he shall be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity :
(a) in case the appointment was initially made in a clear vacancy, from the date of appointment;
(b) in case the appointment was initially made in a leave vacancy or a vacancy occurring for a part of the session or otherwise than in clear vacancy, from the date when such vacancy assumed the character of clear vacancy.
(c) in case the appointment was initially made on a post, the creation of which was sanctioned subsequently by a competent authority in that behalf, from the date of such sanction;
(d) in case he did not possess the prescribed training qualifications at the time of initial appointment, from the date of acquisition of such training qualification :
Provided that in a case referred to in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c), such person possesses the prescribed qualification or has been exempted from the requirements of minimum qualifications and was duly selected and appointed in accordance with law for the time being in force.
Explanation. - The period during which any such teacher has, between the date of his appointment and 15th November, 1976, ceased to work for any reason not arising out of his own request shall not constitute a break into service for purposes of this clause."
17. Clause 2 of U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Seventh) Order 1977 is extracted hereasunder:
"2. In the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Sixth) Order, 1977, after clause (3) the following shall be inserted as clause (4) viz,-
"4. Where a teacher of an institution referred to in sub-clause (d) of Clause 3 of the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Fifth) Order, 1976, undergoing training during the educational session 1976-77 under the Scheme of In-service Teachers Training carried on by the Department of Education, is declared successful after the completion of the training, then for the purpose of eligibility to substantive appointment in the post he shall, notwithstanding anything in preceding clause (3), be deemed to have continued to hold the post of teacher of that institution till the date of declaration of the result to such training and shall be deemed to be appointed substantively on such post provided no other person has been appointed meanwhile on such post in accordance with the Act and the regulations made thereunder and the date of such substantive appointment shall be the date of the declaration of the result of such training.
Explanation. - Nothing herein shall be construed as entitling any teacher to any pay or allowance for any period for which his services were discontinued."
18. Conspicuous glance of Section 16-E reveals that the same has been provided for appointment of Head of Institution and teachers of an Institution by Committee of Management in the manner provided thereunder. As far as teacher appointed in an Institution may not be having requisite qualification, the proviso provides for grant of exemption by Board having regard to his education, experience and other attainments. Further the section reveals that an application for appointment of teacher shall be made to the Inspector and, thereafter, Selection Committee so constituted will proceed to select a candidate. In the case in hand, it appears that approval granted by District Inspector of Schools on 17.04.1972 for academic Session 1971-72 was under Section 16-E read with Section 16(F) of the Act, as it is not in dispute that petitioner at the relevant point of time was an untrained teacher and was only appointed till the end of academic Session i.e. 30.06.1972.
19. However, at this junction, it would be necessary to have a glance of Section 16-F, which stood at the time, when petitioner is said to have been appointed on a temporary basis in the year 1971, as at that relevant point of time appointment of a teacher in a recognised Institution was governed by Section 16-F, which is extracted hereasunder:
"16-F (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter specified, no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or teacher in a recognised institution unless he-
(a) possesses the prescribed qualifications or has been exempted under sub-section (1) of Section 16-E;
(b) has been recommended by selection committee constituted under sub-section (2) or (3), as the case may be, of the said section and approved in the case of principal or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director, Educational and in the case of a teacher by the Inspector:
Provided that if the Inspector is satisfied that for any institution no candidate, who possesses all the prescribed qualifications, is available for appointment, he may permit the institution to employ as a temporary measure any suitable person for a period not exceeding one year. Such period may be extended with the period approval of the Inspector.
Provided also that in the case of leave vacancy or of vacancy occurring for a part of the session of the institution it shall be lawful for the Committee of Management to appoint a Principal, Headmaster or teacher if information of such an appointment is immediately conveyed to the Inspector."
20. This Section 16-F went under a sea-change and was substituted by U.P. Act No. 26 of 1975. From the reading of above provision, it is clear that provision relating to selection of teachers and Head of institution has been incorporated in Section 16-E and the amending Act 26 of 1975 recast Section 16-E and 16-F of the Act and also added Section 16-FF and 16-FFF. Present Section 16-E (3) substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 16-F, as it formally stood. In the present Section 16-E (3), element of flexibility has been retained by adding proviso which permits exemption from prescribed qualification by the Board.
21. From the reading of provisions of Section 16GG, the fact which emerges is that every appointment of a teacher made between August 18, 1975 and September 13, 1976 on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualification or having exempted from such qualification in accordance with provision of this Act, shall be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity. Explanation attached to sub-section (1) of Section 16GG provides that in case of any break in service of a teacher having occurred between date of his ad hoc appointment and date of commencement of section for any reason not arising out of his misconduct or his own violation shall be disregarded.
22. Further, teachers shall be entitled for any pay or allowance for any period of break in his service. Section 16GG was inserted by Section 35 of U.P. Act no. 5 of 1977 w.e.f. 21.04.1977 which provided for ad hoc appointment of a teacher against a clear vacancy having requisite qualification.
23. Section 16GG is in nature of saving clause of Clause 16-E, 16-F and 16-FF as it starts by laying down that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 16-E, 16-F and 16-FF, appointment of every teacher of an institution appointed during a certain period shall stand regularised. This section merely provides for regularization of ad hoc appointments made by management between August 18, 1975 and September 30, 1976 on ad hoc basis, against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualification.
24. While Clause (3) of Fifth Removal of Difficulties Order which came into effect from 27.11.1976 provided that in case Committee of Management appointed any person as a teacher on or before 30.06.1975 for any period as a temporary measure with the approval or permission of Inspector and such person has worked thereafter till 15.11.1976, he shall be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity. Further, sub-clause (d) of Clause (3) included those cases, where teacher so appointed did not possess the prescribed training qualification at the time of initial appointment, it shall be considered to be appointed from the date of acquisition of such training qualification. Explanation attached to the said clause further provided that teachers so appointed between the date of appointment and 15.11.1976 ceased to work for any reason not arising out his own request, shall not constitute a break into service.
25. The State on 16.08.1977 issued Seventh Removal of Difficulties Order, whereby Clause (4) was added after Clause 3 in the Sixth Removal of Difficulties Order, wherein it was provided that a teacher of an Institution referred to in sub-clause (d) of Clause (3) of U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Fifth) Order, 1976, undergoing training during Educational Session 1976-77, under the scheme of IN-SERVICE teachers training carried out by department is declared successful after completion of training, then for the purpose of eligibility to substantive appointment for the post he shall, notwithstanding anything in preceding Clause (3), be deemed to have continued to hold a post of teacher of that Institution till the date of declaration of result to such training and shall be deemed to be appointed substantively on such post, provided no other person has been appointed meanwhile on such post in accordance with Act and Regulations made thereunder and date of such substantive appointment shall be date of declaration of result of such training, thus, from reading of sub-clause (d) of Clause (3) of Fifth Order and newly inserted Clause (4) of Seventh Order, it is clear that teacher shall be held to be substantively appointed on the post on declaration of result to such training which he has undergone and shall be deemed to be appointed substantively on the post, provided that no other person has been appointed while he was undergoing training.
26. Thus from reading of provisions of Section 16-E, 16-F (before amendment) and 16GG as well as Fifth and Seventh Removal of Difficulties order, picture which emerges is that prior to 1975, Section 16-F occupied the field for appointment of teacher in a recognised institution which was subject to having requisite qualification provided in case the candidate did not possess the prescribed qualification, the Inspector may permit him to join the institution as a temporary measure not exceeding one year.
27. This provision has undergone a change and Section 16-E was incorporated by amending Act 26 of 1975 and Section 16-E, thereafter, provided for procedure for selection of teacher and Head of institution and somewhat similar provision was retained as far as prescribed qualification was concerned. Section 16GG provided for appointment made between August 18, 1975 and September 30, 1976 on ad hoc basis, against a clear vacancy and candidate having requisite qualification or having been exempted from qualification in accordance with law shall be deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity, provided such teacher has been continuously working in Institution from date of his appointment uptil 21.04.1977, when this provision came into existence.
28. This provision was further clarified by Fifth Removal of Difficulties Order, wherein the power of appointing a teacher on a temporary basis with prior approval of Inspector who had worked up to 15.11.1976 was held to have been appointed in substantive capacity. While sub-clause (d) of Clause (3) provided for training in those cases where teacher was untrained and it was deemed that his appointment shall be deemed from date of acquisition of such training qualification. Further, Seventh Difficulties Removal Order made the position more clearer providing that teachers so appointed and undergoing training during educational Session 1976-77 shall be deemed to be appointed on substantive capacity on completion of such training and further, no other person has been appointed meanwhile on such post.
29. Thus, before granting substantive appointment to a teacher appointed in an Institution by Management prior to cut off date, conditions as required by aforesaid provision of law are that teacher should possess prescribed qualification in case, it did not have the qualification and underwent training, the same shall be deemed to be appointed only after the completion of such training with the rider that no substantive appointment has been made on the post in question.
30. Clause (3) of Fifth Removal of Difficulties Order further added a condition that appointment made by Committee of Management before 30.06.1975 should be with approval or permission of Inspector.
31. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that petitioner who was initially an untrained teacher was appointed in the year 1971 in 2/3 of L.T. Grade by Management, approval for the same was granted by then District Inspector of Schools for the Session 1970-71, which came to an end on 30.06.1971. As petitioner continued as a teacher in the Institution, further approval for the Session 1971-72 was granted by Inspector till 30.06.1972 as a temporary untrained teacher in the Institution. From the perusal of approval granted by D.I.O.S. on 17.04.1972, it appears that it has been granted in view of Section 16-E and 16-F of the act as prevalent at that point of time and it was for the Session 1971-72, which came to an end on 30.06.1972.
32. As Section 16-F prior to amendment made in the year 1975 only envisages a situation that appointment of a Principal, Headmaster or teacher in a recognised institution shall be made in case it possesses prescribed qualification while, proviso provided that in case Inspector found that no candidate possessed prescribed qualification, he may permit the institution to employ as a temporary measure any suitable person not exceeding one year. However, this period may be extended with approval of Inspector.
33. It is evident that the first approval was granted by District Inspector of Schools on 17.02.1971 for Session 1970-71 and, thereafter, on 17.04.1972 for Session 1971-72 which came to an end on 30.06.1972. It is not denied that petitioner continued in the institution and Management sanctioned study leave from 01.07.1972 to July, 1976, and petitioner resumed his duty in institution on completing his Ph.D on 03.08.1976. He was sanctioned leave by Management from 06.08.1977 to 11.05.1978 for completing B.Ed training, thus, petitioner underwent training for educational Session 1977-78.
34. Respondent no. 3 while rejecting the claim of petitioner on 24.01.2014 relied heavily upon provisions of Section 16GG and Fifth and Seventh Removal of Difficulties Order and held that petitioner only continued as a temporary untrained teacher after 30.06.1972 without the approval of Inspector, as mandated in Clause (3) of Fifth Removal of Difficulties Order and continued in the institution on the basis of appointment by Management and resumed his duty on 03.08.1976. Furthermore, he completed his training during Session 1977-1978.
35. Further, Deputy Director of Education had also relied upon the report of District Inspector of Schools dated 31.05.2013 and 22.06.2013 but has not taken note of the fact that earlier D.I.O.S. had written to him on 14.11.1979 and 21.02.1980, regarding appointment of petitioner in the institution. Moreover, in the order impugned, it has been held that petitioner had not completed his training till 15.11.1976, as mandated in the Fifth Removal of Difficulties Order.
36. Lastly, the ground taken for rejecting the claim is that name of petitioner was not forwarded along with Managerial Return when institution came under grant-in-aid in the year 1978.
37. Thus, I find that the case as considered by respondent educational authorities hinges around Section 16-GG and Fifth and Seventh Removal of Difficulties Order which came into being in the year 1977 and 1976, while petitioner was appointed in the year 1970 and approval was granted by District Inspector of Schools according to provisions applicable at that relevant point of time. On 17.04.1972, again approval was accorded in pursuance of Section 16-E and 16-F, as applicable at that relevant point of time. It was on the strength of said provisions that petitioner appears to have continued in the institution and Management approved his study leave and, thereafter, he resumed his duty and went on training. Section 16-GG being a beneficial legislation only saves the appointment made between 18.08.1975 and 30.09.1976, while both Fifth and Seventh Removal of Difficulties Order grant relaxation in terms of training undergone by an untrained teacher.
38. Thus, adjudication by respondent no. 3 on the touchstone of Section 16GG would not do justice with petitioner as his appointment is prior to the cut off date mentioned in section and his case has to be considered in light of Section 16-E and 16-F, as applicable in the year 1970-71. At that relevant point of time, a teacher was required to possess minimum qualification and it was only Government Order dated 30.03.1971, which provided for undergoing training within 5 years but Act did not provide for the same. It is not in dispute that petitioner completed his training as mandated under Fifth and Seventh Removal of Difficulties Order, the defect stood cured.
39. As there is no finding to the effect that Management never appointed petitioner in terms of Section 16-E and 16-F, the order dated 24.01.2014 cannot be sustained on the ground that appointment of petitioner was never made in the institution and he did not continue after approval was granted by District Inspector of Schools.
40. In view of above, the order dated 24.01.2014 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to respondent no. 3 to reconsider the same in the light of Section 16-E and 16-F, as were applicable, when petitioner was appointed as a temporary untrained teacher in the year 1970, as well as consider the letters of then D.I.O.S. written on 14.11.1979 and 21.02.1980 in regard to appointment of petitioner.
41. While deciding the issue, respondent no. 3 shall also look into the question as to whether appointment of petitioner stood nullity falling short of qualification or was irregular capable of being cured by subsequent acquisition of qualification as all Government Orders especially, Fifth and Seventh Removal of Difficulties Order being beneficial legislation, such benefit could be provided to petitioner.
42. Furthermore, respondent no. 3 will also take into consideration whether any other person was working on the said post in institution when petitioner completed his training and also to the fact whether any teacher was working in place of petitioner, when Managerial Return was submitted in year 1978, when institution came under grant-in-aid.
43. If it found that petitioner continued to work in the institution and acquired qualification of a sanctioned post then, he shall be entitled for the relief claimed.
44. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be completed by respondent no. 3 within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
45. Writ petition stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 14.02.2020 V.S.Singh