B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is focused animadverting upon the judgment and order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27315 of 2008, by which the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant, challenging the Notification dated 28.5.2008, by which on the date of reconstitution of the U.P. State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission), the Appellant was declared to have ceased to hold the office as a Member of the said Commission.
(3.) Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts necessary and germane to the disposal of this appeal run as under: (A) Appellant entered the U.P. Judicial Services as Munsiff in the year 1972 and was promoted to the post of Additional District Judge in the year 1985 and further promoted to the post of District Judge w.e.f. 14.1.2003. (B) The Appellant while working as a Principal Secretary and Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., was appointed as a Member of the Commission on 29.6.2006 for a period of five years i.e. till 30.6.2011. The Appellant joined on the said post on 1.7.2006. (C) Sections 21, 23, 25 and 26 of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter called the Act 1993), stood amended vide The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to Amendment Act 2006). The said amendment came into force on 23.11.2006. (D) After completion of the tenure by the then Chairperson of the Commission and other Members in October 2007, the Appellant remained the lone working Member of the Commission. The State of U.P. issued Notification dated 28.5.2008 to the effect that Appellant ceased to hold the office as a Member of the Commission. (E) The Appellant challenged the said Notification dated 28.5.2008 by filing Writ Petition No. 27315 of 2008, mainly on the grounds that he had been appointed for a tenure of five years and that period could not be curtailed. The amendment Act 2006 could not take away the accrued rights of the Appellant as he had been appointed prior to the said amendment. (F) The Appellant did not implead anyone except the State of U.P. and its Principal Home Secretary as Respondents in the said writ petition. However, the vacancies on the post of the Chairperson as well as of the Members of the Commission were filled up on 6.6.2008 and, in view thereof, no interim order could be passed by the High Court. (G) The High Court dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.4.2009. Hence, this appeal. ;