STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH MANBODHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. MANBODHAN LAL SRIVAITAVA:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross-appeals on certificates granted by the High Court under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution, arise out of a common judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in two writ petitions Nos. 121 and 817 of 1953, dated January 8, 1954, allowing in part and dismissing in part, the two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, by which the petitioner questioned the validity of the orders passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, reducing him in rank, and ordering his compulsory retirement from service. Civil appeal No. 27 has been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and Civil appeal No. 28 by the petitioner in the Court below. For the sake of brevity, we shall refer to the State of Uttar Pradesh as the appellant and the petitioner in the High Court - Sri Manbodhan Lal Srivastava - as the respondent, in the course of this judgment which covers both the appeals.

(2.) It is necessary to state the following facts : In 1920, the respondent was employed in the education department of the State of Utter Pradesh, and in due course, was promoted to the United Provinces Education Service (Junior Scale). This took place in 1946. In the year 1948, the respondent was appointed an officer-on-special duty and managing editor of a quarterly journal issued by the education department, under the style 'Shiksha'. While holding the post of officer-on-special duty, the respondent was also appointed a member of the Book Selection Committee. He continued to function as such until 1951.

(3.) Before dealing with the merits of the controversy raised in these appeals, it is necessary to state that Mr. Mathur appearing on behalf of the appellant, proposed to place before his Court, at the time of the argument, the original records and certain affidavits to show that, that as a matter of fact, all the relevant facts relating to consultation between the State Government and the Commission has not been placed before the High Court and that if the additional evidence were taken at this stage, he would satisfy this Court that the Commission was consulted even after the submission of the respondent's explanation in answer to the second show-cause-notice.