Allahabad High Court
Ramakant vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 15 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1960, (2019) 12 ADJ 107 (ALL)
Author: Suneet Kumar
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. RESERVED Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 54270 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ramakant Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Narayan Rai,Bikash Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rohan Gupta,Shabha Jeet Singh Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Jafar Naiyar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prem Narayan Rai and Sri Himanshu Kumar, learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel assisted by Sri Shivam Shukla, learned counsels for the respondent.
Petitioner, by the instant writ petition is assailing the order dated 6 November 2017, passed by the second respondent, Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur1, District Kanpur Nagar, affirming the order of dismissal dated 20 April 2017, passed by the third respondent, Director, IIT Kanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.
The facts giving rise to the instant petition is that petitioner applied for the post of bus conductor pursuant to Advertisement No. 24 of 1982, under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category on the strength of caste/social status certificate dated 14 July 1978, being member of 'Majhwar' community. The caste certificate was duly issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kalpi, District Jalaun. Petitioner came to be appointed on the post of bus conductor on 28 May 1983, subsequently, was confirmed and made permanent on 30 March 1988, on the post of Bus Conductor Grade-II. On a complaint received by IIT Kanpur, alleging that petitioner obtained appointment on a forged caste certificate. Petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class (OBC), i.e. caste 'Kewat'. On the complaint, petitioner was subjected to notice dated 22 April 2014, calling upon him to show cause. Petitioner replied to the show cause notice denying the allegations levelled against him. The competent authority of the IIT Kanpur communicated with the District Magistrate, Jalaun, to enquire into the social status of the petitioner. No response was received, consequently, IIT Kanpur sought the intervention of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. The Human Resources Department vide communication dated 11 March 2015, requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to direct the District Magistrate, Jalaun, to enquire into the matter. It appears, thereafter, the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, vide communication dated 30 April 2015, informed IIT Kanpur that petitioner belongs to 'Kewat/Mallah/Nishad' community which is notified as OBC.
Petitioner came to be suspended on 22 June 2015, and was also served the articles of charge along with imputation of misconduct and the list of documents and witnesses in support of the charges. Three charges were leveled against the petitioner primarily alleging that petitioner had obtained appointment under the SC category, intentionally and deliberately misrepresenting his caste as ''Majhwar', whereas, in fact, he belongs to 'Kewat' caste recognized as OBC notified by the Government of India. Petitioner filed written statement denying the charges, consequently, an enquiry officer came to be appointed. The IIT Kanpur sought to prove the charge on the statement of three witnesses, including, Tehsildar, Tehsil Kalpi, District Jalaun. The witnesses appeared and deposed in the presence of the petitioner, he was allowed to cross examine them. In defence, petitioner offered himself as a defence witness and Sri Munna Lal his cousin. Petitioner contended before the enquiry officer that he was born in ''Majhwar' community which is recognized as SC. In support of his contention, he submitted copy of the family register, wherein, it has been shown that he belongs to hindu ''Majhwar' caste. Reliance was placed on an order passed by this Court in a petition being Writ Petition No. 42794 of 2002 (Smt. Shashi Lata Versus Superintending Engineer and others), wherein, the niece of the petitioner Smt. Shashi Lata was held belonging to ''Majhwar' community, accordingly, on the directions of this Court she came to be reinstated. It was further alleged that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is malicious as it has been initiated on the complaint of the Secretary of the society against whom petitioner made complaint for encroaching the land and property belonging to IIT Kanpur.
The inquiry officer upon considering the evidences and rival written contentions noted in the enquiry report dated 18 April 2016, that the caste certificate of the petitioner was duly verified from the competent authority i.e. Tehsildar Kalpi/District Magistrate, District Jalaun. They found that as per family register (2001-02) the caste of Munna Lal (D.W.-2) is recorded hindu ''Kewat'. The documents/certificates relied upon by the petitioner to contend that he belongs to hindu ''Majhwar' was not found supported by the entries made in the family register. A report was submitted by the Khand Vikash Adhikari, Maheva (Jalaun), upon verifying the records that the caste of D.W.-2 is hindu (Kewat). The Tehsildar, Kalpi, also submitted a report on reinquiring the matter that the caste of the petitioner is hindu (Kewat) and not ''Majhwar' as he proclaimed. The order of the writ court pertaining to Smt. Shashi Lata was noticed by the inquiry officer. The order nowhere declares that Smt. Shashi Lata belongs to hindu (Majhwar) caste. The order of her reinstatement was passed on pure technical ground. Accordingly, the enquiry officer returned a finding that the petitioner willfully and deliberately suppressed his real social status and obtained appointment against the post reserved for SC category, whereas, petitioner, a resident of Village Gurhakhas, Tehsil Kalpi, District Jalaun, was fully aware of his caste being hindu (Kewat). The charges came to be proved.
The copy of the enquiry report was furnished by the third respondent, Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner vide communication dated 16 May 2016. Petitioner submitted his written objections on 30 May 2016, inter alia, stating therein that the caste certificate of the petitioner issued in 1978 has not been canceled by the competent Scrutiny Committee as mandated by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development2. The inquiry officer though has noted in the enquiry report that petitioner had admitted during cross examination that the Tehsildar is competent authority to issue caste certificate. However, on the objection of the petitioner, IIT Kanpur vide communication dated 13 June 2016, addressed to the District Magistrate, Jalaun, sought clarification as to whether the social status of the petitioner was verified in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. The District Magistrate vide communication dated 19 September 2016, reaffirmed the report of the Tehsildar, Tehsil Kalpi, contending therein that the report is strictly in accordance with the guidelines. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 20 April 2017, passed by the third respondent, Director, IIT Kanpur, District Kanpur Nagar/Disciplinary Authority, the services of the petitioner came to be dismissed. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent which was rejected on 16 November 2017.
In the aforementioned back drop, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the caste certificate (Majhwar) was issued by the competent district authority and there was no fraud or misrepresentation; reliance has been placed on the extracts of the family register to contend that petitioner belongs to caste (Majhwar); the caste certificate till date is intact and has not been cancelled; the social status of the niece of the petitioner, namely, Shashi Lata has been held by this Court being caste ''Majhwar' and not ''Kewat'. Extract of family register and school leaving certificate has been placed on record to contend that the petitioner belongs to caste ''Majhwar'.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the departmental proceedings against an employee of IIT Kanpur is governed by the Statutes framed in exercise of powers conferred under the Indian Institutes of Technology Act, 19613. Statute (13) governs the proceedings. The procedure prescribed therein was duly complied and petitioner was given opportunity at every stage of the proceedings as per the Rules/Statutes. In other words, there is no procedural irregularity.
Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the procedure prescribed under the Statute read with Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 19654, was duly complied. It is further submitted that the social status of the petitioner was duly verified by the District Magistrate, Jalaun, in terms of the guidelines ennunciated in Madhuri2 case; the extract of the documents i.e. family register, school leaving certificate filed along with the writ petition are fabricated and forged documents; social status certificate of the niece of the petitioner has not been verified by any authority/forum including this Court; reliance has been placed on the report of the Principal, Sri Thakkar Bapa Inter College, Hindi Bhawan, Kalpi, (Jalaun), dated 15 February 2014, to contend that petitioner was admitted to class VI on 16 July 1966, his caste in the school register is recorded ''Kewat'. The copy of the extract is duly certified; copy of the application form submitted on behalf of the petitioner was supplied by the Principal of the school; the documents has been placed on record. Further, it is urged that the extract of family register ( 2001-02) records that petitioner and his family members are recorded belonging to ''Kewat' community. The report further certifies that Munna Lal (D.W.-2), cousin of the petitioner, is recorded hindu ''Kewat' in the family register. Further, reliance has been placed on the revenue record of 1995 pertaining to transfer of land by Sri Munna Lal (D.W.-2), wherein, his caste is recorded ''Nishad' under OBC category. The report of the Collector further records that the relatives and family members of the petitioner have been married into ''Kewat/Mallah/Nishad' community and not ''Majhwar'. The authorities verified the documentary evidence, the social status of relatives and family members of the petitioner, who are all recorded hindu ''Kewat' and petitioner alone claims himself belonging to hindu ''Majhwar'. Reliance has been placed on the office memorandum dated 10 January 2013, wherein, the departments of the Central Government were directed to take action against the government servants who got appointment on the basis of false SC/ST/OBC certificates and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them; petitioner till date has not assailed the communications/report issued by the District Magistrate certifying that petitioner belongs to caste ''Kewat' and not to ''Majhwar' community. It is urged that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have taken remedy before the State Level Scrutiny Committee by assailing the report of the Tehsildar/District Magistrate. The petition is devoid of merit.
Rival submission fall for consideration It is not being disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure for imposition of major penalty as contemplated and provided in the Rules governing the employees of IIT Kanpur was duly followed. It is further not disputed that the petitioner has not assailed the communication/report issued by the District Magistrate certifying that the petitioner belongs to caste ''Kewat' notified as OBC. The document placed on record by the respondents i.e. the extract of revenue record of D.W.-2, the family register and the application made on behalf of the petitioner while taking admission, records that petitioner belongs to caste hindu ''Kewat' and not ''Majhwar' as is being claimed. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Kalpi, District Jalaun, duly appeared and was cross examined by the petitioner. On objection raised by the petitioner that the procedure for verification of the social status certificate mandated in Madhuri2 case was not followed, was also rejected upon District Magistrate reaffirming that the guidelines for verification of the social status of the petitioner was duly complied. The entries in school register, family register, social status of the relatives of the petitioner was duly verified, revenue record entries etc. was also considered.
Learned Single Judge of this Court in Sallu Baj Versus State of U.P. and others5, wherein, the appointment was obtained by the petitioner on the S.T. caste certificate which he otherwise did not belong, the Court held that the very basis of the appointment obtained on misrepresentation and fraud was void ab initio. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had applied for the social status certificate disclosing his caste, and the authorities had duly issued the certificate, thus, there was no question of fraud having been committed by the petitioner was rejected.
It is further urged that petitioner had put in more than three decades of service and at the fag end of his career a lesser punishment would have sufficed instead of dismissing the petitioner.
It is common knowledge that in matters pertaining to employment, when information with regard to the antecedents of a candidate is called for, it is intended to verify and cross-check the suitability of the candidate for the job. If the candidate indulges in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, he proves himself unfit to be employed. In the instant case, by producing a forged and fabricated certificate on misrepresentation not only did the petitioner secure a job but he was also responsible in depriving a genuine candidate to the post. The appointment of the petitioner is void and non est in the eyes of law. The punishment that has been awarded to the petitioner befits the misconduct committed by him, thus, any modification with respect to the quantum of punishment will only amount misplaced sympathy and perpetuate the fraud.
A similar plea about long years of service rendered on forged document was considered by the Supreme Court in R. Vishwanath Pillai v. State of Kerala and others6, it was held to be inconsequential. In paragraph 21, it was observed:
"The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in case where the individual acquired a status by practising fraud."
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner for modification of the quantum of punishment lacks merit, accordingly, rejected.
It is, thereafter, vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioner that in view of dictum of law laid down by the Supreme court in the decisions reported as Kumari Madhuri Patil v Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development7, Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of AP v Laveti Giri8, Lillykutty v Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST & Ors9 and Union of India v Dattatray10, the only authority which is empowered under law to examine genuineness of the caste certificate is Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is therefore submitted that the inquiry officer committed jurisdictional error in returning a finding upon the validity of the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner.
The question therefore arises is as to whether the enquiry officer committed jurisdictional error in returning finding upon the social status of the petitioner.
In Madhuri2 case following guidelines were laid down by Supreme Court regarding procedure for issuance, scrutiny and approval of social status certificates:-
"13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:
1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub- Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non- gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub- castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or ,,doubtful‟ or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.
8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.
13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 227.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post."
The guidelines was issued stipulating a fair and just procedure to shorten the undue delay. The endeavour was to give effect of the guidelines and ensure that the constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement of the genuine SC/ST/OBC classes candidates, as the case may be are not defeated by unscrupulous persons.
From the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the only decision which may have some relevance on the issue in hand is the decision of Supreme Court in Madhuri (supra) case. Laveti Giri (supra) merely reiterates the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Madhuri2 case. Lillykutty and Dattatray (supra) has no application whatsoever on the issue in hand.
Having examined the decision of Madhuri2 case, it cannot be said that Madhuri case lays down that the Inquiry Officer would commit an error in returning a finding upon the social status of the petitioner for the same was a matter which exclusively falls in the domain of Caste Scrutiny Committee. The guidelines issued in Madhuri2 case lays down the procedure to be followed for issuance of fresh caste certificates or verification of caste certificates already issued by the authorities. By no stretch of imagination, Madhuri case lays down that wherever the issue of correctness of a caste certificate comes up in question, no authority other than Caste Security Committee can enquire into the same.
In the facts of the instant case, it is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding on the social status of the petitioner returned by the inquiry officer is based upon the reports submitted by the competent authority i.e. Tehsildar/District Magistrate. The Tehsildar (P.W.-3) appeared as a witness before the enquiry officer and reiterated the social status of the petitioner relying upon the reports of various officers based on documents.
In the circumstances, the inquirty officer committed no jurisdictional error in returning a finding upon the social status of the petitioner based on the reports and certificates of the Collector. On the contrary, it was incumbent upon the petitioner as per the guideines in Madhuri2 case to assail the report either before the State Level Committee or before this Court in Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court recently in Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and others Versus Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others11, upon revisiting the law where the incumbent has obtained benefit of admissions/appointment based on false social status certificate held and declared, inter alia, as follows:
"1. Conclusion
57. For these reasons, we hold and declare that:-
(i) The directions which were issued by the Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 38 of the decision in Milind (AIR 2001 SC 393) were in pursuance of the powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution;
(ii) Since the decision of this Court in Madhuri Patil (AIR 1995 SC 94) which was rendered on 2 September 1994, the regime which held the field in pursuance of those directions envisaged a detailed procedure for (a) the issuance of caste certificates; (b) scrutiny and verification of caste and tribe claims by Scrutiny Committees to be constituted by the State Government; (c) the procedure for the conduct of investigation into the authenticity of the claim; (d) Cancellation and confiscation of the caste certificate where the claim is found to be false or not genuine; (e) Withdrawal of benefits in terms of the termination of an appointment, cancellation of an admission to an educational institution or disqualification from an electoral office obtained on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category; and (f) Prosecution for a criminal offence;
(iii) The decisions of this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai (AIR 2004 SC 1469) and in Dattatray (AIR 2008 SC 1678) which were rendered by benches of three Judges laid down the principle of law that where a benefit is secured by an individual - such as an appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution - on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category for which the benefit is reserved, the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon verification would result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission being rendered void or non est.
(iv) The exception to the above doctrine was in those cases where this Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to render complete justice;"
In view of the principle laid down in Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra), once the social status certificate is declared false by the competent authority, the appointment would render void or non est. In that event, the employer would not be required to initiate regular departmental proceedings under the Rules for the reason that the certificate would bind the disciplinary authority. In such an event, the delinquent employee can be removed from service upon a show cause notice. The disciplinary authority would have no occasion to return a finding in a proceedings to a charge. The very foundation on which the services of the delinquent employee was based upon being demolished, the consequence would be automatic removal from service. In the instant case, admittedly, the District Collector being the competent authority upon verification had certified that the petitioner does not belong to the SC community, consequently, the appointment of the petitioner would render it void or non est. Even then IIT Kanpur got conducted a full fledged departmental enquiry for imposition of major penalty in accordance with the Rules.
On specific query, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
No cost.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019 K.K. Maurya