Vijai Kumar Kushwaha and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Vijai Kumar Kushwaha and ors. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Apr 29, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/490853

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/490853
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and ;Vineet Saran, J.
Decided On: Apr 29, 2003
Case Number: Special Appeal No. 314 of 2003
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vijai Kumar Kushwaha and ors.

Advocate Vikrant Pandey, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Advocate Ranvijai Singh, Adv. and ;S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21
Cases Referred: English Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Reported In: (2003)3UPLBEC2211

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....of the state government and could not be interfered with or challenged in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of english medium students parents association v. state of karnataka and ors., (1994)1 scc 550.5. the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition holding that it was open to the state government to make classification in its government order and the government restricted the scope of appointment only to those candidates who obtained degrees from within the state of uttar pradesh. such restriction was held to be a valid restriction and could not be said to be violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of india.6. having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 27.8.1999 does not suffer from any infirmity. no ground has been made out for interference in appeal. we agree with the learned single judge in upholding the vires of the said government order dated 9.1.1998 and also the selections made in accordance with the said government order and also the advertisement dated 8.3.1998 issued by the respondents.7. accordingly, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and Vineet Saran, J.

1. Heard Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Ranvijai Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27948 of 1999. The prayer in the writ petition was for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to join B.T.C. training course in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 8.3.1998. The aforesaid advertisement had been issued in pursuance of the Government Order dated 9.1.1998 whereby it was provided that only those candidates who had obtained C.P.Ed., B.P.Ed./L.T., D.P. Ed., B.Ed. degrees/certificates from within the State of Uttar Pradesh would alone be qualified to apply.

3. Admittedly, the appellants have obtained B.Ed. degrees from the State of Madhya Pradesh and not from any College/University within the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellants have contended that such a restriction imposed by the said Government Order is wholly arbitrary as the degrees obtained by the appellants were duly recognized under the N.C.T.E. Act and as such they were also eligible for applying against the said advertisement dated 8.3.1998.

4. Sri Ranvijai Singh, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the validity of the Government Order dated 9.1.1998 has already been upheld in another Writ Petition No. 29107 of 1999, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., decided on 19.7.1999. It has also been contended that the decision of the Government to impart condensed training of B.T.C. to only those candidates who are covered under the said Government Order, was a policy decision of the State Government and could not be interfered with or challenged in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of English Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (1994)1 SCC 550.

5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that it was open to the State Government to make classification in its Government Order and the Government restricted the scope of appointment only to those candidates who obtained degrees from within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Such restriction was held to be a valid restriction and could not be said to be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 27.8.1999 does not suffer from any infirmity. No ground has been made out for interference in appeal. We agree with the learned Single Judge in upholding the vires of the said Government Order dated 9.1.1998 and also the selections made in accordance with the said Government Order and also the advertisement dated 8.3.1998 issued by the respondents.

7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties Vijai Kumar Kushwaha and ors. vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. and ;Vineet Saran, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21

Constitution