SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. on 29 January 2020

542

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2020] 1 S.C.R.

A

SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR.

v.

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 802 of 2020)

B

JANUARY 29, 2020

[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND

KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority ServiceCRegulations, 1981 – Regn. 16 – U.P. Industrial Development Act,1976 – ss.3, 5 and 19 – Respondent no. 4 was appointed on thepost of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation in NOIDA andwas subsequently absorbed – Appellants filed writ petition layingchallenge to the appointment of respondent no. 4 – The High Courtdismissed the writ petition – On appeal, held: s.5 of the Act of 1976Dmakes it clear that the power of appointment of officers andemployees lies with the Authority subject to such control andrestrictions as may be determined by general or special orders ofState Government – Regn. 16(1)(c) of the 1981 Regulations givesexpress power to the NOIDA to make appointment on deputationEwhich is one of source recognized under the sources of recruitment– Once the deputation as a source of recruitment is available underthe Rules of Recruitment, there is no impediment in assuming thepower of absorption of a deputationist with the Authority bynecessary intendment or implication, under Act of 1976 and 1981Regulations framed thereunder – Besides, in view of the provisionsFof s. 80 of 1981 Regulations r/w. s.41 of U.P. Urban Planning andDevelopment Act, 1976, not only respondent no. 2 is bound by everydirection issued by the State Government from time to time, theappointment of respondent no. 4 in NOIDA on deputation and hissubsequent absorption under the orders of the State GovernmentGcannot be faulted with or can be held to be in violation of 1981Regulations.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. From a perusal of the Section 5 of the U.P.Industrial Development Act, 1976 provisions, it is clear that theH

power of appointment of officers and employees lies with theAuthority subject to such control and restrictions as may bedetermined by general or special orders of State Government.The appellants failed to place before this Court any such generalor special orders of the State Government whereunder the powerof appointment which includes power of appointment by deputationis restricted. Contrary thereto, Regulation 16(1)(c) of the NewOkhla Industrial Development Authority Service Regulations,1981 gives express power to the NOIDA to make appointmenton deputation which is one of source recognized under thesources of recruitment. Once the deputation as a source ofrecruitment is available under the Rules of Recruitment, thereis no impediment in assuming the power of absorption of adeputationist with the Authority by necessary intendment orimplication, under Act of 1976 and 1981 Regulations framedthereunder. [Para 21] [551-E-F]

2. Besides this Regulation 80 of 1981 Regulations providesthat these Regulations are subject to the provisions of any Rulemade by the State Government under the Act of 1976 as directionsissued by State Government under Section 41 of U.P. UrbanPlanning and Development Act, 1973 or to the provisions of anyother law made on the subject by an Act of Legislature of UttarPradesh or the Parliament. [Para 22] [551-G-H; 552-A]

3. 1987 Regulations having been framed under theprovisions of Section 79(c) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948, aparliamentary enactment authorizing absorption of employees oferstwhile U.P. Power Corporation in Government undertakingsor other Statutory Corporations, in view of provisions of Section80 of 1981 Regulations read with Section 41 of U.P. UrbanPlanning and Development Act, 1976, not only respondent no. 2is bound by every direction issued by the State Government fromtime to time, the appointment of respondent no. 4 in NOIDA ondeputation and his subsequent absorption under the orders ofthe State Government cannot be faulted with or can be held to bein violation of 1981 Regulations. The first issue stands answeredaccordingly. [Para 22] [553-B-C]

AB

C

DE

FG

H

AB

C

DE

FG

H

A4. Question of maintainability of challenge to appointmentand subsequent absorption at the behest of appellants has alsobeen raised by respondent nos. 2 & 3. It is vehemently contendedthat appellant lacks requisite necessary qualifications for beingconsidered for promotion to the post of Project Engineer(Electrical) and being ineligible for promotion any challenge toBappointment on the said post at their behest is not maintainable.It is pointed out that eligibility for promotion to the post of ProjectEngineer is Degree in Engineering with minimum 8 years ofexperience as Assistant Project Engineer. [Para 23] [553-D-E]

5. Specific case set up by NOIDA in its counter affidavit isCthat appellant no. 1 was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1987and was promoted to the post of Assistant Project Engineer on27.08.2013. Thus he lacks necessary qualification of 8 yearsexperience and shall be eligible for being considered forpromotion in 2021. Insofar as appellant no. 2 is concerned, he Dwas appointed on the post of Assistant Project Engineer inFebruary, 2009. As prescribed by Service Regulations, he becameeligible for being considered for promotion on completing 8 yearsof service in February, 2017. Thus, at the time of appointment ofrespondent no. 4 in 2014, and his subsequent absorption in 2015,both the appellants were not eligible for promotion to the post ofEProject Engineer for want of requisite 8 years experience asAssistant Project Engineer. [Para 24] [553-E-G]

Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji BashirAhmed & Ors. AIR 1976 SC 578 : [1976] 3 SCR 58 ;Jamil Ahmed v. Industrial Development CommissionerFand Principal Secretary & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 736– relied on.

Case Law Reference

[1976] 3 SCR 58relied onPara 25

G(2004) 13 SCC 736relied onPara 25CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 802 of2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2017 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition (ServiceHBench) No. 295 of 2015.

R. Venkata Ramani, Sr. Adv., Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, RaviChandra Prakash, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Praveen Vignesh, Vijay PratapSingh, Yashoraj Bhundela, Ikshit Singhal, Ms. Vani Vyas, Advs. for theAppellants.

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati (AAG), Salman Khurshid, Sr. Advs.,Ms. Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma, Ravindra Kumar, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi,Abdul Qddir, Ms. Sharma Usmani, Zulnoor Ahmed, Ibad Mushtaq,Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of theHigh Court[1 ]dated 08.02.2017 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by theappellants laying a challenge to the appointment of respondent no. 4 onthe post of Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation in New OkhlaIndustrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘NOIDA’)and his subsequent absorption.

3. The appellants are presently posted as Assistant ProjectEngineer (Electrical) in NOIDA.

4. On a request made by respondent no. 4, who was employed asa Sub-Divisional Officer with U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., seekingappointment on a vacant post of Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA,State Government, vide letter dated 13.02.2014 required the NOIDA toappoint him on the said post on deputation for a period of three years. Inpursuance to the aforesaid letter, an appointment order dated 19.02.2014was issued by NOIDA and respondent no 4 was permitted to join thesaid post. Subsequently vide letter dated 16.02.2015, respondent no. 2made a recommendation to respondent no. 1 for absorption of respondentno. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the High Courtby way of a Writ Petition praying, inter-alia, for:-

(i) Quashing the recommendation letter dated 16.02.2015 forabsorption.

(ii) Quashing letter dated 19.02.2014 appointing respondent no4 on deputation on the post of Project Engineer (Electrical).

1 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A(iii) Commanding the respondents to fill up the post of ProjectEngineer in accordance with Service Rules and to restrainrespondent no. 4 from functioning as Project Engineer(Electrical) in NOIDA.

5. During the pendency of Writ Petition before the High Court,Brespondent no. 4 was absorbed on the post of Project Engineer(Electrical) vide order dated 07.05.2015, issued by the respondent no.1.This order was challenged in the Writ Petition by way of an amendmentapplication which was allowed by the High Court.

6. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.02.2017, the High CourtCdismissed the Writ Petition.

7. The core issue which arises for our consideration is whetherthe recruitment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Project Engineer(Electrical) on deputation and his subsequent absorption on the said postis permissible under NOIDA Service Regulations, 1981.

D

8. Incidentally another issue which arises is whether the appellantsare eligible for being promoted to the post on which respondent no. 4 hasbeen appointed and whether the appellant’s right of promotion getseclipsed by absorption of respondent no. 4 and in case the appellantswere not found eligible for promotion whether any challenge toEappointment or absorption of respondent no. 4 would be maintainable attheir behest.

9. NOIDA was constituted by the State Government by means ofnotification issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial DevelopmentAct, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1976’) enacted by theFState legislature to provide for constitution of an authority for developmentof certain areas in the State, into Industrial and Urban Township.

10. Section 5 of the Act of 1976 vests with the Authority thepower to appoint officers/employees for performance of its functionsincluding determining their grades and designations subject to control/restrictions of the State Government through general/special orders.GSection 19 of the Act of 1976 vests with the Authority the power tomake regulations with the previous approval of the State Government.

11. In exercise of powers vested under Section 19 of the Act of1976, NOIDA has framed the New Okhla Industrial DevelopmentAuthority Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1981H

Regulations’) to govern the conditions of service of conditions of itsemployees. Regulation 16 of 1981 Regulations provides for sources ofrecruitment to all posts. The same reads as under :- “ Section 16 – Sources of Recruitment

16. (1) Recruitment to any post under the Authority may bemade from any of the sources - (a) by direct recruitment; (b) by promotion from amongst the employees occupying postcarrying a lower scale through a departmental test or aninterview of selection or in any other manner specified by theAuthority.

(c) by deputation or re-employment or on contractual basis.

(d) from any other source as approved by the Authority.

(2) (i) Sixty six percent of Group ‘A’ posts shall be filled in bydirect recruitment and the remaining thirty four percent postsshall be filled in by promotion from amongst the employeesupon the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfitand fulfillment of the requisite qualifications and also subjectto the condition of the particular employee having workedfor at least a period of two years on a post carrying scale ofpay next below. If at any time it is found that sufficient numberof employees are not available for filling in the percentageprescribed for promotion such posts may be filled in by directrecruitments;

(ii) Various posts falling under Group ‘B’ will be filled in sucha way as to ensure that fifty percent of the posts are filled inthe promotion from amongst the employees and such promotionshall be made on the basis of seniority subject to the rejectionof the unfit and fulfillment of the requisite qualifications andalso subject to the condition of the particular employee havingworked on a carrying the scale of pay next below for a periodof at least two years;

(iii) Posts under Group ‘C carrying lowest scale of pay shallbe filled in to the extent of twenty five percent by promotionfrom amongst the employees belonging to the Group ‘D’ on A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit andfulfillment of the requisite qualifications and also subject tothe condition of the particular employee having worked on apost carrying a scale of pay next below for at least a periodof two years. The remaining seventy five percent of such postsshall be filled in by direct recruitment; B

(iv) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained theAuthority shall have full power to modify the source ofrecruitment or the percentage of promotion or directrecruitment in relation to any posts or class of posts.”

C12. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellantthat since Clause 16 (2) provides that 60% of Group ‘A’ posts are to befilled in by direct recruitment and remaining 34% by way of promotionfrom amongst the existing employees on the basis of seniority, the postof Project Engineer (Electrical) which is a Group ‘A’ post could nothave been filled in by way of deputation and thus the appointment ofDrespondent no. 4 on the said post on deputation is illegal and directly inthe teeth of Service Regulations.

13. The argument is based on an isolated reading of Regulation16(2)(i) which is impermissible. It is well settled that a provision isrequired to be read in whole and not in part and in isolation to the otherEparts of the provision. The entire provision is required to be read outharmoniously . Regulation 16 (i) (c) clearly provides that recruitment toany post under the Authority can be made by deputation. If the provisionsof Regulation 16 are to be read in a manner suggested by learned counselfor the appellant it would render Clause 16 (i) (c) totally redundant. It isFwell settled principle of law that any particular portion of provision cannotbe read in isolation in a manner so as to render the other part of thesame provision totally redundant. Similar situations exist under Clause16 (2) (ii) and (iii) providing for appointment on post falling under Group‘B’ and ‘C’ . If the provisions of Regulation 16 are read in the mode andmanner suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, the provisionsGof Section 16 (i) (c) would be rendered totally redundant in respect ofposts falling under Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ as well. Regulation 16 is intendedto provide the modes of recruitment and combined reading of the entireregulations makes it amply clear that an appointment to a post fallingeither under Group ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ can very well be made on deputation.

H

14. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted thatNOIDA had formulated a Recruitment and Promotion Policy in the year1993, wherein the mode of recruitment provided was by way ofpromotion, direct recruitment and deputation. Subsequently anotherRecruitment and Promotion Policy was framed in 2005, which providedthat the post of Project Engineer in the Engineering cadre was requiredto be filled in 100% by promotion. Thus, the three sources of recruitmentcontemplated in the 1993 Policy were reduced to one source in the 2005and thus thereafter no recruitment could have been made on the postProject Engineer by way of deputation.

15. In the counter affidavit filled on behalf of the NOIDA, it hasbeen stated that the Recruitment and Promotion Policy, 2005 was sentfor approval of the State Government. Vide letter dated 18.10.2007, theState Government while clarifying that the Board is competent to frameits Recruitment and Promotion Policy directed the NOIDA to ensurethat Policy is not inconsistent with the provisions of Regulations, 1981. Itis the specific case setup by NOIDA in its counter affidavit that thePolicy could not be implemented in view of the directions issued by theState Government, since the proposal to do away with direct recruitmentto Group ‘A’ posts and to fill them only on the basis of promotion wasinconsistent with the NOIDA Service Regulations 16 (i) (c) of the 1981Regulations. In view of the specific case setup by NOIDA that thePolicy of 2005 was never implemented being inconsistent with the 1981Regulations and that no part of Regulation 16 of 1981 Regulations hasbeen amended till date, the reliance placed by the appellants upon the2005 Policy is completely misplaced and erroneous. Regulation 16 as itstands (quoted hereinabove) that holds field with regard to source ofrecruitment in the Authority. The State Government has taken the samestand in its counter affidavit.

16. Now coming to the issue of absorption of respondent no. 4Regulation no. 16 of 1981 expressly provides that recruitment can bemade either by deputation or direct recruitment or from any other source.Regulation 2 deals with applicability of these Regulations and expresslyprovides for posting/recruitment on deputation basis and absorption ofsuch persons in the service of NOIDA. It may be useful to extractRegulation no. 2 which reads as under:- “2. These regulations shall apply to every whole time employeeof the Authority except a person working with the Authority AB

CD

E

F

G

H

Aon deputation from the Union Government or any StateGovernment or a Local Authority or a Corporation or anyother organization, by whatever name called, and such aperson shall continue to be governed by the rules applicableto him in relation to his service under his parent departmentor organization, by whatever name called unless such personBis absorbed in the service of the Authority as a regularemployee.”

17. The decision to absorb respondent no. 4 was taken by theState Government exercising the powers under the U.P. Absorption Rules,1984 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of theCConstitution of India. Rule 5 of the U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984 providesthat any Government servant may be permitted to be absorbed in theservices of undertaking in which the employee is on deputation, if heapplied to the Government for his absorption in the undertaking beforeexpiry of three years from the date of commencement of his deputationDor before the date on which he attains the age of 53 years whichever isearlier and the undertaking concerned also moved the Government forhis absorption within such period and the Government agrees to suchabsorption in public interest.

18. A specific stand has been taken by the State Government asEwell as NOIDA in the counter affidavit that the State Government hasexercised the power under the U.P. Absorption Rules, 1984 by issuingorders of absorption of respondent no. 4 in the NOIDA.

19. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondentno. 4 was employee of erstwhile U.P. Power Corporation which is not aFgovernment department hence he was not a government employee andthus could not be absorbed in the service of NOIDA under the AbsorptionRules, 1984 as the said Rules are applicable only in the case of agovernment employee. No doubt respondent no.4 was not a governmentservant and Absorption Rules are applicable only to a government servant,but the issue need not detain us for the reason that there are another setGof Rules known as “Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Parishad Ke SewakoKa Sashan Evam Anya Upkarmo Me Samvilayan Viniyam 1987”(hereinafter referred to as ‘1987 Regulations’), which is a StatutoryRegulation framed under the provisions of Section 79(c) of ElectricitySupply Act, 1948, whereunder the employees of corporation can be H

absorbed in the service of State Government or in other undertakings ofGovernment or corporations in the same manner as employees of theGovernment can be absorbed under Absorption Rules, 1984.

A

20. Reference at this stage may be made to provisions of Section5 of the Act of 1976 which reads as under :- B

“ 5 Staff of the Authority –

(1) Subject to such control and restrictions as may bedetermined by general or special orders of the StateGovernment, Authority may appoint such member ofofficers and employees as may be necessary forCperformance of its functions and may determine itsgrades and designations.

(2) Subject as aforesaid the officers and other employeesof Authority shall be entitled to receive from the fundsof the Authority, such salaries and allowances and shallbe governed by such other conditions of service as maybe agreed upon with the Authority.”

D

21. From a perusal of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that thepower of appointment of officers and employees lies with the Authoritysubject to such control and restrictions as may be determined by generalor special orders of State Government. Learned counsel for the appellantsfailed to place before us any such general or special orders of the StateGovernment whereunder the power of appointment which includes powerof appointment by deputation is restricted. Contrary thereto, Regulation16(1)(c) of 1981 Regulations gives express power to the NOIDA tomake appointment on deputation which is one of source recognized underthe sources of recruitment. Once the deputation as a source of recruitmentis available under the Rules of Recruitment, we do not see any impedimentin assuming the power of absorption of a deputationist with the Authorityby necessary intendment or implication, under Act of 1976 and 1981Regulations framed thereunder.

E

F

G

22. Besides this Regulation 80 of 1981 Regulations provides thatthese Regulations are subject to the provisions of any Rule made by theState Government under the Act of 1976 as directions issued by StateGovernment under Section 41 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development H

AAct, 1973 or to the provisions of any other law made on the subject byan Act of Legislature of Uttar Pradesh or the Parliament. Regulation 80of 1981 Regulations reads as under:- “80. For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that theseRegulations shall be subject to any Rules made by the StateBGovernment under the Act or any directions issued by theState Government under Section 41 of the U.P. UrbanPlanning and Development Act, 1973 or to the provisions ofany other law made on the subject by an Act of Legislature ofUttar Pradesh or the Parliament.

CSection 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act readsas under:- “41. Control by State Government :-

(1) The [Authority),the Chairman or the (Vice-Chairman] shallcarry out such directions as may be issued to it from timeDto time by the State Government for the efficientadministration of this Act.

(2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers anddischarge of its functions by the [Authority, the Chairmanor the Vice-Chairman) under this Act any dispute arisesEbetween the authority, the Chairman or the ViceChairman) and the State Government the decision of theState Government on such dispute shall be final.

(3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its ownmotion or on application made to it in this behalf, call forFthe records of any case disposed of or order passed bythe [Authority or the Chairman) for the purpose ofsatisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any orderpassed or direction issued and may pass such order orissue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit:

GProvided that the State Government shall not pass an orderprejudicial to any person without affording such persona reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(4) Every order of the State Government made in exercise ofthe powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shallHnot be called in question in any court.”

Section 41 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act,1976 is applicable to Act of 1976 by virtue of Section 12 of the said Act.

1987 Regulations having been framed under the provisions ofSection 79(c) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948, a parliamentary enactmentauthorizing absorption of employees of erstwhile U.P. Power Corporationin Government undertakings or other Statutory Corporations, in view ofprovisions of Section 80 of 1981 Regulations read with Section 41 ofU.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1976, not only respondentno. 2 is bound by every direction issued by the State Government fromtime to time, the appointment of respondent no. 4 in NOIDA on deputationand his subsequent absorption under the orders of the State Governmentcannot be faulted with or can be held to be in violation of 1981Regulations. The first issue stands answered accordingly.

23. Question of maintainability of challenge to appointment andsubsequent absorption at the behest of appellants has also been raisedby learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3. It is vehemently contendedthat appellant lacks requisite necessary qualifications for being consideredfor promotion to the post of Project Engineer (Electrical) and beingineligible for promotion any challenge to appointment on the said post attheir behest is not maintainable. It is pointed out that eligibility forpromotion to the post of Project Engineer is Degree in Engineering withminimum 8 years of experience as Assistant Project Engineer.

24. Specific case set up by NOIDA in its counter affidavit is thatappellant no. 1 was appointed as Junior Engineer in 1987 and waspromoted to the post of Assistant Project Engineer on 27.08.2013. Thushe lacks necessary qualification of 8 years experience and shall be eligiblefor being considered for promotion in 2021. Insofar as appellant no. 2 isconcerned, he was appointed on the post of Assistant Project Engineerin February, 2009. As prescribed by Service Regulations, he becameeligible for being considered for promotion on completing 8 years ofservice in February, 2017. Thus, at the time of appointment of respondentno. 4 in 2014, and his subsequent absorption in 2015, both the appellantswere not eligible for promotion to the post of Project Engineer for wantof requisite 8 years experience as Assistant Project Engineer.

25. For the aforesaid facts and reasons the challenge made bythe appellants to the appointment and absorption of respondent no. 4 isnot tenable and they have no locus standi in the matter. It may be A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Arelevant to refer to the observations made by this Court in the caseJasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed &Ors.[2], relied upon by the High Court, holding that unless injury is sufferedpersonally a person can not be said to be aggrieved and has no locusstandi.

B“In the light of above discussion, it is demonstrably clearthat the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a legalright. He has not sustained injury to any legally protectedinterest. In fact, the impugned order does not operate as adecision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect histitle to something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong.CHe has suffered no legal grievance. He has no legal peg fora justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore, he is not a ‘personaggrieved’ and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of‘No Objection Certificate’.”

26. There is yet another aspect of the matter liable to be takenDinto consideration, undisputedly after absorption of respondent no. 4 inthe NOIDA he was relieved from his parent department and his lienwith the parent department ceased. Considering a somewhat similarcontroversy in the case of Jamil Ahmed Vs. Industrial DevelopmentCommissioner and Principal Secretary & Ors.[3], where a SeniorEInspector in Railway Protection Force was initially deputed to NOIDAand subsequently absorbed, this Court after analysing the provisions of1981 Regulations while holding the appointment on deputation andsubsequent absorption in NOIDA was permissible, observed that such aemployee can not be put in a position which results in his being anemployee neither of the Authority nor of the parent department. It mayFbe relevant to reproduce observations made in Paragraph 9 of the reports.

“On the facts and circumstances of this case, we need not goin depth into the question sought to be urged on behalf of theAuthority, for, we are of the view that the appellants havingresigned from the Railways and having been absorbed in theGAuthority eight years back, can not be put in a position, forno fault of his, which results in his being an employee neitherof the Authority nor of his parent department. The appellant 2 AIR 1976 SC 578H3 2004 (13) SCC 736

SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

cannot be made to suffer for the discrepancy, if any, assumingthere is any such deficiency which is now pleaded as a reasonby the Authority.”

27. As a result of our aforesaid discussion, we do not find anymerit in this appeal and the same accordingly stands dismissed with noorder as to costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H