Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, 1890

Section - S. 3, 5

Act Name - U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, , 1951

Section - S 279

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act , 1973, 1973

Section - S 11

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952,

Section - R 284

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Rules, 1975,

Section - R 12

Questions Referred

Whether decision in Mange Ram and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(4) ADJ 390 (DB) in so far as it takes the view that there is no provision under any of the Acts for levying any collection charges for mere issuance of citation or sale proclamation is correct or, the decision in Chinta Mani v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(6) ADJ 302 (DB) holding that provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 279 do not contain any provision for an absolute waiver of recovery charges where the citation has been issued under sub-section (1) and the charging Section empowers the Collector to raise such demand subject to the rules and provision of Revenue Recovery Act U.P. Act No. 37 of 2001, is correct?

List of Cited Cases

• Chinta Mani v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(6) ADJ 302 (DB)
• Mange Ram and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(4) ADJ 390 (DB)

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 309

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974,

Section - R.5

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the judgments in Subhash Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Vivek Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. on the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 5(iii) and the proviso thereto read with Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, lay down the correct position of law?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Police Act, 1861, 1861

Section - S.2

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations,

Section - Regn.525

Questions Referred

(1) Whether a police constable working in the civil police who has rendered service for more than ten years cannot be transferred to another branch in view of the provisions of Regulation 525 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(2) ADJ 484 (SC) : 2008(1) ESC 158 (SC)?

(2) Whether the government railway police and civil police constitute one cadre or different service cadres?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, 1946

Section - S.15, S.12A

Questions Referred

1.Whether amendments made in Model Standing Orders become automatically applicable to Certified Standing Orders without any amendment to the Standing Orders of the establishment finally certified under Section 10 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946?

2. Whether model orders framed by Central Government and amendments therein supersede the Model Standing Orders framed by State of U.P.'' Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.225, Art.226

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap.5 R.1

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the Court concerned can assume jurisdiction not conferred upon the Court under the distribution of work by Hon'ble Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice?

(b) Whether a Court hearing a petition can frame an issue and then answer the same, although the issue may not arise for consideration in the proceedings before the Court?

(c) Whether the High Court on judicial side can issue directions for regulating the entry, conduct and other related matters in respect of practice as a lawyer in the High Court, Subordinate Courts, Tribunal and other authorities?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 225

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chap.8 R.5

Questions Referred

Where a learned Single Judge while hearing a writ petition calls for counter and rejoinder affidavits, but does not pass any order on the stay application either granting or refusing a stay, will the order amount to a refusal of interim relief to the petitioner either temporarily or impliedly and a 'judgment' within the meaning of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - 362

Questions Referred

At which stage dissent to be indicated (by the companion Judge on the Bench), at the time of conclusion of dictation or during the course of discussion?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.321

Questions Referred

1. Whether the power of withdrawal can be exercised by State Government under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure in a whimsical or arbitrary manner or it is required to be exercised for the considerations, just, valid and judicially tenable?

2. Whether decision taken by State Government for withdrawal of cases communicated to Public Prosecutor with direction to proceed ahead is open to judicial review or not in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

3. Whether State Government should not be required to make scrutiny of various criminal cases pending in Subordinate Courts to find out if they deserve withdrawal in exercise of powers under Section 321 Cr.P.C. irrespective of fact that accused or anyone else has approached the Government for this purpose or not?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes), 1994, 1994

Section - S.3, S.8

Questions Referred

(A)Whether the candidature of an OBC candidate is liable to be rejected on the ground of the caste certificate having been submitted after the last date for submission of applications?

(B)Whether the decision in Arvind Kumar Yadav lays down and represents the correct position in law ?

(C)Whether there exists any irreconcilable difference or repugnancy between the norms fixed by the Union and State Governments with regard to certification of creamy layer? If not, its effect?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S.16G

Act Name - Government Order Date 25.11.2005,

Section - NA

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 30

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the law laid down in the case of N.B. Lal v. District Inspector of Schools (supra) that provisions of Chapter II Regulation 5 providing for filling up 50% post by promotion of Assistant Teacher violates the right of minority institution guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution?

(2) Whether the institution claiming itself to be a minority institution and acknowledged as such by the State Government is entitled to not to consider the claim of promotion of teachers of the primary section of Intermediate Colleges claiming promotion under the Government Order dated 25.11.2005 whereby 25% quota is reserved in their favour, on the ground that it offends Article 30 of the Constitution of India?

(3)Whether the provisions relating to promotion in respect of teachers of Intermediate College contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, can be treated to be regulatory in nature, not violative of rights under Article 30 of the Constitution of India?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, 1947

Section - (26 of 1947) , S.95(1)(g) Proviso

Questions Referred

(i) As to Whether the District Magistrate at the point of time when he proceeds to cease the administrative and financial authority of the Pradhan, he acts as a Tribunal or acts as an administrative authority?

(ii) The view as expressed in the case of Smt. Sonia (supra) that under the scheme of things provided for under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the District Magistrate exercising delegated authority of State Government acts as Tribunal is a correct view or District Magistrate exercises administrative authority, while exercising authority under Section 95(1)(g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.372 Proviso, S.378(5), S.2(wa)

Questions Referred

Whether computation of period of limitation in filing the appeal at the instance of the victim would lie within 60 days as provided under section 378 (5) Cr.P.C. or ninety days following the decision of Division Bench of the Court in Criminal Misc. Application Defective U/s 372 Cr.P.C. ( Leave to Appeal) No. 83 of 2013 ?

Subject

1. Societies-Registration

Statutes

Act Name - Societies Registration Act, 1860, 1860

Section - S.25(2)

Act Name - U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, 1973

Section - S.57

Questions Referred

1.Whether there can be a mandamus commanding the Authorized Controller/ District Magistrate to hold election of office bearers of a registered society contrary to the provisions of Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860?

2.Whether there could be a direction to the Authorized Controller/District Magistrate to hold elections, more so when a second appeal is pending?

Subject

1. Service-Pension

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - :Art. 16, 309

Act Name - Civil Service Regulations, 1889,

Section - Art 370

Questions Referred

Whether the period of service rendered as a work charged or a daily wage employee is liable to be counted for the purposes of computing ''qualifying service'' as required by Regulation 370 for the grant of pension?

Subject

1. Co-operative Societies

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, , 1966

Section - S.122

Act Name - U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations (1975),

Section - Regn.21

Questions Referred

1.Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable against a Co-operative Cane Development Society, at the instance of its employee, for alleged breach of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975 which govern his service conditions?

2. Whether the law laid down in Ram Karan v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 27306 of 2014, or Srinarayan Gupta v. State of U.P., Special Appeal (D) No. 779 of 2014, decided on 12th September, 2014, is the correct law, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Vijay Bihari Srivastava v. U.P. Postal Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd.?

3. Whether the U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975 are statutory in nature having been issued under Section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 or are merely in the nature of administrative instructions?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Indian Penal Code , 1860, 1860

Section - S. 302, 63

Questions Referred

Whether it is mandatory to impose fine in addition to the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - S.10, S.35

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 141

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998,

Section - R.14(3), R.(1), R.12, R.10, Proviso

Questions Referred

(a). Whether the Full Bench in the case of Raeesul Hasan (supra) has laid down the correct law?

(b). Whether there can be two different years of recruitment with reference to the posts, which are within the direct recruitment quota and for the posts within the promotion quota under Rules 10,11 and 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998?

(c.) Whether Rule 10 of the Rules 1998 read with the proviso attached to it necessarily entails the determination of the number of vacancies to be filled by way of promotion in that year of recruitment which would end on 30th of June of the succeeding year by adding all the existing and likely vacancies due for retirement so as to make the proviso workable which requires that the vacancies, which may not be filled by promotion be intimated to the Board for direct recruitment by 31 of July of that year?

(d.) Whether the view taken by the Full bench would result in giving a leverage to the management to decide as to what would be the year of recruitment under Rule 14 of Rules 1998 or determine the 1st day of the year for eligibility requirements for promotion at its whims and fancies and thereby defeat the right of eligible L.T. Grade teachers for promotion on their turn?

(e). Whether determination of the quota under which a particular vacancy in Lecturer's grade would fall has necessarily to be so done with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancy in the institution or the management has a right to club all the vacancies of the recruitment year and decide which is to be filled by direct recruitment and which by promotion?

Subject

1. Women and Law- Domestic Violence

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.397, S.401

Act Name - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, 2005

Section - S.29

Questions Referred

(i) Whether a revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable before the High Court challenging an order passed by the Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the Act 2005?

(ii) Whether the decisions in the case of Nishant Krishna Yadav (Criminal Revision No. 4016 of 2015) and Manju Shree Robinson and others v. State of U P and others (Writ Petition No. 7926 (MS) of 2015) lay down the law correctly on the question of maintainability of a Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court against an order passed by the Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the Act 2005 in view of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Thakur Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (1978) 1 SCC 27; National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., Chidambaram v. James Chadwaick and Bros., AIR 1953 SC 357; Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Jayee Drugs & Pharm, (1991) 2 SCC 637; and ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Networks Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 510 ?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.225

Act Name - United Provinces High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948,

Section - Cl.14

Questions Referred

1. The Amalgamation Order, 1948 is a special law hence whether territorial jurisdiction of the two Benches of the Allahabad High Court has to be decided in view of the provision of Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, as interpreted, in case of Nasiruddin, by the Apex Court or in view of the notification of State Government with regard to the place of sitting of Special Judge, CBI ?

2. Whether decisions of the two Division Bench of this Court in case of Sanjay Somani and Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma deciding the territorial jurisdiction, by the location of the court, which has passed the impugned order or where the proceeding is pending, are against the object and provision of Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order and against the judgment of the Supreme Court in cases of Nasiruddin and para 14 of U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill's case ?

List of Cited Cases

• U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow v. State of U. P. and others, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 738 : (AIR 1995 SC 2148).

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - University Grants Commission Act, 1956, 1956

Section - S. 2 (f), 3

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S. 15

Questions Referred

(a)Whether Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, up to the year 2008 i.e. till it was recognised by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School, obtained with English as one of the subject and passed in one year is a valid qualification equivalent to High School, regardless of Gurukul having been declared a fake University by the UGC?

(b) Whether the decision of the division bench in Special Appeal No. 1990 of 2011 dated 13.10.2011 (Indrawati Devi v. State of U.P. and others), which holds that ''Adhikari Pariksha'' certificate obtained from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura cannot be held to be a valid degree, does not lay down the correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Indrawati Devi v. State of U.P. and others (Neutral Citation No. - 2011:AHC:161136-DB)

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S.16C

Act Name - U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, 1973

Section - S.2(13)

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the amendment will become effective from the date of the amendment?

(2) Whether the amendment, extending the term of the Committee of Management, will apply to the existing Committee of Management, which has made the amendment or it applies to the Committee of Management which will be formed after the election being held after the amendment?

List of Cited Cases

• Bishun Narain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1567
• M.M.I. Inter College, Bijnor v. Dy. Director of Education, 1995 All LJ 427

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.309

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974,

Section - R. 2 (c)

Questions Referred

Whether the definition of 'family' in Rule 2 (c) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 is inclusive or exhaustive?

List of Cited Cases

• Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation (1985) 4 SCC 71
• Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Hooghly Mills Company Ltd. (2012) 2 SCC 489

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, , 1961

Section - S.15(3)(ii

Questions Referred

(i) Whether notice required to be given under Section 15(2) and (3) of Act, 1961 as also under Section 28(2) and (3) of Act, 1961 read with Rules prescribing the format and procedure is mandatory?

(ii)Whether the observations made in Ram Nath Tripathi (supra) that requirement of notice in prescribed form alongwith its enclosures in complete format is mandatory, or directory as observed in Smt. Krishna Jaiswal (supra). Which of these judgement lays down correct law?

List of Cited Cases

• Ram Nath Tripathi v. Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow and other (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1181
• Smt. Krishna Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and others 2005 (2) AWC 1732

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Sub-ordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955,

Section - R.4

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001,

Section - R.2

Questions Referred

1.Whether a policy decision with regard to appointment of class III or class IV employees can be taken by the Chief Justice alone or by the Administrative Committee or by the Full Bench or by a committee authorised by the Chief Justice?

2. Since in Rule 4 for appointment on class IV posts namely, chowkidar, waterman, sweeper, etc. discretion has been conferred on the District Judge for making appointment, whether the discretion which is conferred on the District Judge by the rule making authority by means of legislation, can be taken away by the judicial pronouncement and as such even such posts should be filled by advertisement?

3. Whether the decision taken by the committee constituted by the Chief Justice, Administrative Committee or the Full Court is to operate prospectively or will apply retrospectively which would result in removal of all the employees on class III and class IV posts in the district judgeships who have been appointed without advertisement and have been regularized, whether such employees can be removed from service?

4. Where an ad hoc employee is appointed and is continued for a fixed period of three months, his services are extended from time to time and funds are sanctioned by the High Court for paying salary etc. to them, whether such appointment is treated to have obtained assent of the High Court and, therefore, continuance in service is legal and whether such employees who have put in about 8 years or more service, is entitled to be regularize ?

5. Whether engaging or appointing class IV employees on daily wages requires the advertisement?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - S. 16, 35, 11 and 10

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - Chapter III, Regulations 101 to 107

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998,

Section - 13, 12, 10 and 4

Questions Referred

(a) Whether a dependent can claim appointment against a post of teacher even after the post has been requisitioned to the selection Board in view of the Regulations 101 to 106 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act merely because he has qualifications for the same, specifically when on the date of requisition, no such application for compassionate appointment was pending?

(b) Whether Article 16 of the Constitution of India will be applicable to the teachers working in recognized Intermediate Colleges which are under the private management even if aided by the State Government?

(c) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ved Prakash (Supra) lays down the correct law?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, 1955

Section - S.3

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004,

Section - Cl.28(3)

Questions Referred

(a)Whether the Division Bench in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad (supra) was justified in declaring the mandamus issued by a coordinate bench as bad and thereby directing that any Government Order issued in pursuance thereof may be withdrawn forthwith or it should have referred the matter to a larger bench?

(b) Whether both the Division Benches in the case of Jagannath Upadhyay (supra) and Rajeshwar Prasad (supra) were correct in issuing general mandamus either way in the matter of fresh settlement of shop during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner or not?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 1988

Section - S.173, S.170, S.149(2), S.149(4) Proviso

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the insurer can contest a motor accident claim on merits, in particular, in regard to the quantum, in addition to the grounds mentioned in Section 149 (2) of the Act for avoiding liability under the policy of insurance?

(ii) Whether an insurer can prefer an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.16, Art.226

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act., 1971, 1971

Section - S.9

Questions Referred

(1) Whether in the absence of any sanctioned post, can a direction in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be given for payment of salary when admittedly no post has been sanctioned by the competent authority?

(2) Which of the two decisions in the case of Rajesh Yadav (supra) and Om Prakash Verma (supra) keeping in view the Full Bench decision in the case of Gopal Dubey (supra), lays down the law correctly?

(3) Whether the State Government or its authorities, who are authorized to create posts, by virtue of their inaction can defy creation of posts in an institution keeping in view the larger interest of the society namely education which is specifically in the hands of the State Government?

(4) Whether the State Government under the garb of threat of contempt could proceed to issue a direction for payment of salary to a teacher who was never appointed in the institution as admitted in the present case?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.320

Questions Referred

Where the Commission requires the submission of an online application as well as the submission of a hard copy of the application together with all the requisite documents by a prescribed last date and candidates are placed on notice that the candidature of an applicant who has failed to complete all the prescribed stages by the last date would be rejected, would it be a correct position in law to hold that the Commission is bound to entertain the application though the hard copy together with the documents was received after the last date prescribed merely on the ground that the documents had been dispatched before the last date of the receipt of the application?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds(Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991, 1991

Section - S.6(1)(a)

Questions Referred

A. Whether the immunity provided to the bond holder of India Development Bond in US dollars, under Sections 6 and 7 of the Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 which includes that no enquiry to be made from bond holder, regarding the source, is also available to gifts, which are found to be bogus gifts, routing the unaccounted money of the bond holder, through such bonds, by purchasing the bonds for consideration in India?

B. Whether the view taken in the judgment dated 26.7.2011 in Income Tax Appeal No. 3 of 2004; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Usha Omer, (2011) 338 ITR 448, that no investigation can be allowed to be held pertaining to the India Development Bonds which were received from NRI's/Overseas Corporate Bodies as gifts is a correct view, in law?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 225, 226 and 227

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chapter V-Rules 15, 14, 13, 12, 7 and 1 and Chapter VII, Rule 7

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Chawali (supra) could have proceeded to examine the legality/enforceability of the circular issued by Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 16.12.2013 specifically in the circumstances when no issue was framed in that regard by the Full Bench and it had not been addressed upon by any of the counsel present before the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Chawali (supra)?

(b) Whether general direction to list and tied up cases irrespective of the circulars of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 16.12.2013 could be issued to the Registry by the Full Bench without affording opportunity to the High Court to have its say in the matter?

(c) Whether the majority opinion of the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Chawali (supra) on the issue is bad for non-consideration of the law laid down by earlier Full Bench in the case of Sanjay Kumar Srivastava (supra)?

(d) Whether the nominated cases must be listed before the same Bench even after there has been a change of roster?

(e) At what stage the assignment of fresh cases to a particular Bench comes to an end?

(f) Whether nomination in the name of the Senior Member of the Bench would suffice or there should be a nomination with the name of all the judges constituting the Bench, in matters is to be heard by more than one Judge?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - University Grants Commission Act, 1956, 1956

Section - S. 3 , 22

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the Division Bench in its judgment dated 10.5.2013 has rightly proceeded to observe that the degrees through off-campus centres in relation to the disputed Universities referred to herein above have been validated as per the Government Order dated 4.3.2013 and are duly recognized in law, and if not, then whether the Division Bench was correct in upholding the degrees as recognized on the basis of the said Government Order?

(ii) Whether the Government Order dated 4.3.2013 amounts to validating such degrees that are otherwise invalid in view of the communications of the University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education?

(iii) Whether the view taken by the Division Bench without assessing the validity of such degrees can be said to be justified only on the mere recital contained in the Government Order dated 4.3.2013?

(iv) Whether the Government Order by itself is a valid executive instruction proceeding to cancel an administrative communication with one of the contenders on 1.1.2010, and if not then whether the view expressed by the Division Bench upholding the same can be said to be valid in law?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, 2009

Section - S. 23

Questions Referred

(a) Whether inclusion of the name of a person in the select panel with reference to an advertisement published prior to the enforcement of the Government Order dated 02.06.2010 i.e. 01.04.2010 would confer any right of appointment even after 01.04.2010?

(b) Whether in view of the Government Order dated 02.06.2010 no fresh appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra can be made even if the selection had taken place earlier?

(c) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Usha Kumari (supra) and Sheela Yadav (supra) is the correct law?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.226

Act Name - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act., 1958, 1958

Section - S.9, S.5A

Questions Referred

(1) Whether an order passed under Section 5A is appealable under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971?

(2) Whether Sanjay Agarwal's case lays down the correct proposition of law?

Subject

1. Sub.

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.2(wa), S.372, S.374, S.378

Questions Referred

1. Whether the definition of the word ?victim? as used in Section 2 (wa) would mean any person other than a ?guardian? or ?legal heir? also for the purpose of maintaining an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.?

2. Whether the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Edal Singh Vs. State (Supra) states the law correctly keeping in view the conflicting ratios of the Full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. (Supra) and that of the Patna High Court in the case of Parmeshwar Mandal (Supra)?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education Service - Appointment

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S.16E(10)

Act Name - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - NA

Questions Referred

As to whether with the aid of Section 32 of U.P. Act No.II of 1921 after enforcement of provisions of U.P. Act No.V of 1982, the authority of State Government/ Director of Education under Section 16-E (10) of Act 1921 still remains intact in the matter of cancelling appointment made on the recommendation of U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board.

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Qualification - B.P.Ed., B.Ed., LT - Diploma - Principal/Headmaster

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Intermediate Education Act, , 1921

Section - S.16G

Act Name - Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,

Section - Reg. Chapter II - Appendix A - Clause 2

Questions Referred

(I) Whether training qualification B.P.Ed. is equivalent qualification to that of B.Ed., L.T., B.T./C.T. Etc. so as to be covered by the phrase ''equivalent qualification'' of training degree/diploma as contained by Clause-2 of Appendix-A of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921?

(ii) Whether a teacher possessed of a degree of Post Graduate and training qualification of B.P.Ed. from an institute duly recognized by National Council for Teachers Education is qualified for being considered for appointment as Principal/Headmaster of a recognized High School/Intermediate institution?

(iii) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Vindhyachal Yadav (Supra) is the correct law or not?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Reservation - Clubbing - Subject Wise - College Wise - Recruitment Year - Unfilled Vacancies

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.141, Art.136

Act Name - U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes), 1994, 1994

Section - S. 3(2)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Higher Eduction Service Commission Act, 1980, 1982, 1982

Section - NA

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Higher Eduction Service Commission Act, 1980, 1982, 1982

Section - S. 12(3)

Questions Referred

1. Whether the rules of reservations under the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 are applicable to appointment on the post of lecturers, by direct recruitment, in the aided postgraduate and undergraduate colleges in the State of UP, affiliated to the State Universities by clubbing all the vacancies as provided under Section 12 (3) of the UP Higher Eduction Service Commission Act, 1980 subject-wise; or the vacancies have to be worked out for applicability of rules of reservation college-wise and subject-wise?

2. Whether there has to be plurality posts in the cadre, for applying the rules of reservation, which means more than one; or there has to be at least five posts in the cadre for applying the rules of reservations?

3. Whether the vacancies arising in any recruitment year under Rule 3 (2) of UP Act No. 4 of 1994 can be filled up separately even if they have not been advertised earlier, in that recruitment year or in the subsequent recruitment year, or such reserved vacancies have to be advertised at least once to be carried over for the recruitment in the same year or in the subsequent year?

4. What is the meaning of the words 'unfilled vacancies' in Section 3 (2) of UP Act No. 4 of 1994?

5. Whether Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case (supra) and the Full Bench decision in Heera Lal's case (supra) have been correctly decided?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Shiksha Mitra - Ban

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Basic Education Act, , 1972

Section - S.19

Questions Referred

(i) Whether a candidate can be denied engagement as a Shiksha Mitra if the process for selection by issuance of an advertisement had commenced prior to the ban imposed by the Government Order dated 2 June 2010?

(ii) Whether the view expressed by the two Division Benches in Smt. Usha Kumari and Shalini is correct or the view expressed by the Division Bench in Priyanka Mall is correct?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Bail - Appeal - Maintainability - SC/ST Act - Limitation

Statutes

Act Name - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989, 1989

Section - S.14A

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S. 439

Act Name - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, 2016

Section - S. 14A

Questions Referred

(i) Whether in matters of offences committed before 26.1.2016, from which date amending Act No. 1 of 2016 inserting/adding provisions of appeal against orders allowing or refusing an application for bail by the Special or Exclusive Special Judge under S.C./S.T. Act has been enforced, the filing of appeal will be incompetent on the ground of offence having been committed prior to enforcement of above provisions of Section 14-A and an application for bail under general provisions of law Section 439 Cr.P.C. before this Court, would be competent as held in the case of Janardan Pandey (supra)?

(ii) Whether the provisions of newly added Section 14-A (3) and its proviso prescribing the limitation period of 90 days from the date of order, further providing for the condonation of delay by the High Court in appeals preferred beyond the period of 90 days and again providing a maximum period of 180 days, after which no appeal shall be entertained, puts absolute bar on the right of appeal and renders the aggrieved persons remediless or it only suspends the general provisions of seeking bail from the High Court under the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. for a limited period of 180 days after which the provisions of Section 14-A becomes obsolete and ineffective for ever and the right to seek bail before the High Court under general provisions of law Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands revived as held in the case of Rohit (supra) or the accused may move fresh application for bail before Special or Exclusive Special Court and in case of its rejection may have fresh right of appeal under Section 14-A of the Act?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Remedy - Revision

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S.156(3), S.379(2)

Questions Referred

(1) Whether an order made under Section 156 (3) of the Code rejecting an application for a direction to the police to register and investigate, is revisable under Section 397?

(2) If the answer to Question (1) is in the affirmative, then, whether in a revision filed against an order rejecting an application under Section 156 (3), the prospective accused is also a necessary party and is required to be heard before a final order is pass?

Subject

1. Constitution - Service Law - Officiating Appointment - Salary

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 16 , 309, 141, 226.

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Financial Handbook Vol. II (Parts II to IV),

Section - Clause (1), (ii) and (iii) /Para 49

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Prem Chandra Srivastava which directs that merely on holding additional charge of an additional post, the incumbent would become entitled to salary of higher post even in absence of sanction from the finance department, lays down the correct law or not?

(b) What is the effect of the order of the Supreme Court dated 4 September 2013 dismissing the appeal filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in the case of Prem Chandra Srivastava (supra)?

(c) Whether proviso to Para 49 of Chapter VI of Financial Handbook, Vol. II (Parts II to IV) which requires the concurrence of the finance department, if officiating appointment is to be continued beyond 90 days would be applicable in respect of appointments covered by Clauses (i) & (ii) of Para 49 or the said proviso would be applicable to appointments under Clause (iii) only?

Subject

1. Constitution - Service Law - Writ - Alternative Remedy - Armed Forced Tribunal - Supreme Court

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Arts. 32, 226

Act Name - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, 2007

Section - S. 3 , 30, 31

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the final order of the Tribunal made under Section 14 can be said to have been taken away by any stretch of interpretation of the statutory provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The necessary corollary being that can an act of Parliament whittle down any of the constitutional remedies made available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution of India as laid down in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India?

(b) Whether the remedy of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be denied by the High Court to a litigant on the ground that he has a statutory remedy available before the Apex Court by way of an appeal under Section 30/31 of AFT Act, 2007, thereby he loses his constitutional right of judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India specially in the circumstance when the order of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself can be subjected to challenge before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India?

(c) Whether the High Court may refuse to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because of availability of statutory alternative remedy only in cases where after exhaustion of such statutory remedy his right to seek judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not lost?

Subject

1. Service Law - Qualification - Drug Inspector

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.309

Act Name - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, 1940

Section - S.33

Act Name - Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945,

Section - R.49

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh State Drug Control Officers Service Rules,1995,

Section - R.5(1)

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the experience required in the proviso to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is only 2 a bar of authorization to inspect the manufacture of substances, or is an essential qualification under Rule 49 for direct appointment as Drug Inspector under Rule 5 (4) of the U.P. State Drug Control Gazetted Officers' Service Rules, 1995?

(2) Whether the Division Bench judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Zunab Ali & Ors. has been correctly decided?

Subject

1. Administrative Law - Freehold - Procedure - Government Order - Awarded

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.14, Art.300A

Questions Referred

1. Whether the application of the petitioner dated 25.7.2005 submitted for grant of freehold right on the basis of the Government Order dated 1.12.1998 (Paragraph 7) and the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 (paragraph 5) was entitled to be considered in accordance with the Government policy as was in existence on the date of application or the Government policy as amended by Government Order dated 4.8.2006, was to be taken into consideration while deciding the application on 18.12.2006?

2. Whether the Division Bench judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta v. State of U.P., 2009 (4) AWC 4038, lays down the correct law?

Subject

1. Constitution - Scheduled Caste - Kasera, Shilpkar

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 341 (1) and (2)

Questions Referred

(1) Whether 'Kasera' is a sub-caste of 'Shilpkar' which is notified in the category of Scheduled Caste under Article 341 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India?

(2) Whether the judgment dated 23.12.2011 in Service Bench No. 2080 of 2011 (State of U.P. and another v. Vijay Shanker and another) is correct in law?

Subject

1. Tax - Sales Tax - Refund

Statutes

Act Name - The Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, 1948

Section - S. 29, 9 and 10

Questions Referred

In case, where the case is remanded back by the appellate authority to the assessing officer either under Section 9 or Section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act after setting aside the assessment order without any specific direction to refund the amount, whether it is obligatory on the part of the assessing officer to refund the amount and to pay the interest in case, if the amount is not refunded within the specific period?

Subject

1. Co-operative Society

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, , 1966

Section - S.38(1)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules,1968,

Section - Rule 454

Questions Referred

Whether, the division benches in Kamil Kidwai Vs. State of U.P., 1992 (10) Lucknow Civil Decisions, 263, followed in Writ Petition No. 45314 of 2014, in so far as the exercise of power by a committee of management of a cooperative society, under rule 454, is subject to grant of sanction by Registrar under section 38(1) of the Act lays down the correct law?

Subject

1. Reservation - Horizontal - Compartmentalized

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-servicemen) Act, , 1993

Section - S.3(1)

Questions Referred

(a)Whether the judgment and order of the Division Bench in the case of Rajeev Kumar (supra) insofar as it lays down that "the reservation has to be spread evenly for the representation of female category candidates to the extent of minimum of 20 per cent. each category", is the correct principle of law in the matter of application of horizontal reservation with reference to the provisions applicable in the State of U.P. or not?

(b)Whether the application of horizontal reservation has to be affected in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sheo Shankar Singh (supra) and Brijendra Deo Mishra (supra), referred to above, or the reservation has to be applied compartmentalized, as has been suggested in the case of Rajeev Kumar (supra)?

(c) What should be the mechanism for application of horizontal reservation in respect of various categories provided therein namely women, dependents of freedom fighter, physical handicapped etc. in the State of U.P.?

Subject

1. Service Law - Cooperative

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, , 1966

Section - S.22(2)

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Federation Limited Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 1980,

Section - Rule 83

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975,

Section - Regulation 84

Questions Referred

1.Whether Regulation 84 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees' Service Regulation 1975 read with Rule 83 of the U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 1980 services can be harmonized so as to uphold the punishment by way of dismissal of an employee coupled with an order directing recovery of an amount on the charge of a financial embezzlement or misappropriation to be included within the fold of Regulation 84 ?

2.Whether the law laid down in the case of Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others (Supra) in respect of the true import of Regulation 84 read with Rule 83 aforesaid does not state the correct position of law as against the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no.13 in the case of Satya Narain Mishra Vs. Praband Nideshak and another (Supra) and alternatively as to whether the statement of law in that regard as explained in the judgment of Satya Narain Mishra Vs. Praband Nideshak and another (Supra) should be accepted as the correct position of law ?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S. 438

Questions Referred

(i)Whether the Court would have no jurisdiction to reject the anticipatory bail after considering the grounds of compelling reasons mentioned in the affidavit being found not appealing, which would amount nothing but to approach this Court directly?

(ii)Whether amongst the grounds which have been enumerated in the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), the ground at Serial (A) requires any reconsideration so as to preclude the co-accused approaching this Court directly in case the other co-accused's regular bail/anticipatory bail is rejected by the Court of Sessions and whether he be also subjected to filing such an affidavit, showing therein the circumstances in which he had to feel compelled to approach this Court directly?

(iii)Whether amongst the grounds which have been enumerated in the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), the ground at Serial (B) requires any reconsideration as to whether an accused, who is not residing within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court concerned, faces a threat of arrest, should be allowed to approach the High Court directly, to move an anticipatory bail application by the logic given above in Para 6 of this judgment?

(iv)Whether such anticipatory bail applications which do not contain any compelling reason to approach this Court directly, should be entertained?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Remission

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, , 1974

Section - S. 432, 433 and 482

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the directions issued by the Division Bench in Ganesh (supra) that too general directions, commanding the Chief Judicial Magistrates to release convicts whose applications for remission/premature release have remained pending beyond a particular period, as interim measure, till disposal of the said applications, is in accordance with law especially in view of the Constitution Bench decision in V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others (supra) and H. Nilofer Nisha (supra)?

(2) Whether the High Court in exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. can confer jurisdiction upon the Chief Judicial Magistrates/Magistrates in the District Courts which the law otherwise does not confer upon them?

Subject

1. Tax - Income Tax

Statutes

Act Name - Income Tax Act, 1961, 1961

Section - S. 260-A (2)

Act Name - Limitation Act, 1963, 1963

Section - S. 4-24, 29 (2)

Questions Referred

Whether the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 260-A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as provided under Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963?

Subject

1. Constitution - Jurisdiction - Abuse of Process of Court

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 226 and 134-A

Questions Referred

i) Whether the subsequent Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020 filed by the petitioner after final judgment dated 17.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009 is an abuse of process of the Court, as before filing the Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020, the petitioner has filed Civil Misc. Application No. 87559 of 2019 for further direction and issuance of certificate for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 134 of the Constitution and during the pendency of the said application, the present writ petition has been filed?

ii) Whether the second Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020 filed by the petitioner is maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner is seeking implementation of the judgment and order dated 17.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009?

iii) Whether the second Writ Petition No.8870 (MB) of 2020 is barred by the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata in view of the fact that while allowing Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009 vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2019, the respondents have been directed to process the application of the petitioner for conversion of lease-hold-rights into free-hold, in accordance with law laid down by the Full Bench in Anand Kumar Sharma's case (supra) and, thus, the issue regarding the relevant date for conversion charges was very much involved in Writ Petition No.12081 (MB) of 2009?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Service Law - Retrenched Employees

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 309

Questions Referred

i) Whether the Division Bench judgments in the case of Shankatha Prasad Mishra (supra); Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (supra); Mirtuyanjay Prasad Singh (supra); Keshav Ram Pandey (supra) and State of U.P. and others v. Amar Pal Singh, [Special Appeal (Defective) No. 646 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2016] have correctly held that the benefit of past services rendered by retrenched employees of Auto Tractors Limited, who have been subsequently absorbed in Government service, such as the petitioner, would count towards their qualifying service for purposes of calculation of retiral dues payable by the State Government?

(ii) Whether a retrenched employee of Auto Tractors Limited such as the petitioner, who got absorbed in State Government Service subsequently as per the relevant rules known as the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service Rules 1991 are entitled to count their previous services rendered by them under the erstwhile employer i.e. the Auto Tractors Limited, for calculation of qualifying service for purposes of retirement benefits under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 and other ancillary rules and Government Orders in this regard as also Government Orders dated 11.11.1993 and 10.7.1998 as modified vide Government Order dated 28.12.2001?

(iii)Whether Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Shanker Gupta passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 553 of 2015 decided on 27.11.2015 is in conflict with the earlier decisions by Coordinate Benches rendered in the case of Shankatha Prasad Mishra (surpa); Hridayesh Dayal Srivastava (surpa); Mirtuyanjay Prasad Singh (surpa); Keshav Ram Pandey (supra) and State of U.P. and others v. Amar Pal Singh, [Special Appeal (Defective) No. 646 of 2016 decided on 25.10.2016] or not? If so, which of the two sets of Division Bench judgment lays down the law correctly with regard to question No. 2 as rephrased by us herein above?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Service Law

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 226

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the Division Bench judgments dated 19.07.2010 and 24.05.2018 rendered in Special Appeal No. 478 of 2010, State of U.P. and another v. Nand Kumar Singh and in Writ Petition No.13751 (S/B) of 2018, Gyan Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. and others (2018 (5) ALJ 547 (ALL)), respectively, correctly construe and interpret the provisions of paragraph 11 of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997 in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. S. Sharma, which is based on the interpretation and construction of the O.M. dated 12.01.1988 issued by DoPT that is similarly worded as paragraph 11 of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997 issued by the State Government ?

(b) Whether the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Nand Kumar Singh (supra) and Gyan Prakash Pandey (supra) have failed to appreciate that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Keshari Nayak (supra) did not record its disagreement or disapproval of the meaning, purport and application of O.M. dated 12.01.1988 in the earlier judgment rendered by a three Hon'ble Judges Bench in R. S. Sharma (AIR 2000 SC 2337) (supra) but opined that R. S. Sharma (supra) was not applicable in the facts of the case before it, therefore, the law declared by R. S. Sharma (supra) was binding?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Education Service
2. Words and Phrases - Minimum Qualifications
3. Teachers Eligibility Test

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, , 1982

Section - S.35

Questions Referred

a) Whether the law laid down in the case of Usha Goel (supra) as followed in the case of Shail Kumari (supra) providing that for a teacher to be eligible for promotion under Rule 14 of 1998 Rules, he must have 5 years teaching experience subsequent to his having acquired the essential qualifications prescribed qua the post on which he is to be promoted is the correct law?

(b) Whether the word 'as such' used in Rule 14 of the 1998 Rules refer to the post on which the promotion is to be made from the post in the lower cadre and the qualifications prescribed thereto only and does not require teaching experience of 5 years subsequent to the acquisition of such minimum qualification qua the promotional post?

Subject

1. National Highways - Compensation

Statutes

Act Name - National Highways Act, 1956,

Section - 3D (1), 3D (2)

Questions Referred

(i) Whether a subsequent purchaser of the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, after publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), is not entitled to receive compensation on the strength of his vendor's title in view of Section 3D(2)?

(ii) Which of the judgments (i) Surendra Nath Singh Yadav (supra) or (ii) Vipin Kumar Agarwal, Asha Devi and Smt. Gyanti Singh, lay down the law correctly?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Retirement

Statutes

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules,1981,

Section - R 29

Questions Referred

(a) Whether the law as laid down by the Division bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, is the correct law or not?

(b) Whether the proviso to Rule 29 of Rules, 1981, as it stands on the statute book as on date, admits of extension of service of the teacher of retirement beyond 30th June following the date of retirement or not?

(c) Whether the conscious decision of the State Government in terms of the Government order dated 9.12.2014 providing that the teachers would still retire on 30th June, following the date of retirement can be said to be bad or arbitrary in any manner so as to require issuance of a mandate to the State Government to make the amendments in proviso to Rule 29 of Rules 1981 merely because it has altered the academic session from 1st April of the year to 31st March of the succeeding year?

Subject

1. Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Probation

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.16, Art.309

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974,

Section - R.5

Questions Referred

1.Whether the appointment of a person on a compassionate basis on probation is permissible in law ?

2.Whether an appointment made under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (Dying in Harness Rules) is a permanent or a temporary appointment?

Subject

1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
2. Procedure

Statutes

Act Name - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1908

Section - O.18 R.4

Act Name - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 1988

Section - S.169

Questions Referred

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted in U.P. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can permit, while hearing a claim petition, to file affidavits of the witnesses and treat them as Examination-in-Chief and may further permit the parties to cross-examine witnesses on the basis of such affidavits ?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Service Law
2. Home Guard - Civil Post

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Home Guards Act, , 1963

Section - S.7, S.10 Expln.

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art.311(2), Art.226, Art.227

Act Name - U.P. Home Guards Service Rules,1992,

Section - R.2

Questions Referred

(1). Whether Division Bench judgment in Riasat Ali v. State of U.P., 2003 (4) AWC 3046 holding that a Home Guard under U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 is not holder of a civil post in view of expression to Section 10 is correct or Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No. 143 of 2012 (Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) relying on Full Bench judgment in Sheela Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(5) ADJ 86 (FB), which is a case relating to Anganbari Karyakatri and Supreme Court's judgment in Davinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2010(4) ESC 582 (SC) which is in the context of Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 and Punjab Home Guards and Civil Defence (Field) Class III Service Rules, 1983 holding that Home Guard is a holder of civil post, is correct?

(2) Whether Division Bench in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (supra) has rightly held that Home Guard in State of U.P. governed by U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 is not holder of a civil post disagreeing with the earlier Division Bench judgment in Riasat Ali v. State of U.P. (supra) and relying on Full Bench judgment in Sheela Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(5) ADJ 86 (FB) relating to Anganbari Karyakatri and Supreme Court's judgment in Davinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (supra) which was not in relation to U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963, without referring the matter to Larger Bench?

List of Cited Cases

• Sheela Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(5) ADJ 86 (FB)
• Davinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2010(4) ESC 582 (SC).
• Riasat Ali v. State of U.P., 2003 (4) AWC 3046 : (2003 All LJ 3073

Subject

1. Tax - Income Tax

Statutes

Act Name - Income Tax Act, 1961,

Section - S.12 AA(2)

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the non disposal of an application for registration, by granting or refusing registration, before the expiry of six months as provided under Section 12AA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would result in deemed grant of registration?

(ii) Whether the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport & Conservation of Environment v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 216 CTR (All) 167, holding that the effect of non consideration of the application for registration within the time fixed by Section 12AA(2) would be deemed grant of registration, is legally correct?

Subject

1. Sale Deed - Registered

Statutes

Act Name - Registration Act, 1908,

Section - S.35, S.66

Questions Referred

(a) Whether after a sale-deed has been registered, the Assistant Registrar has any authority of law to cancel the registered sale-deed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 even if allegation of impersonation/fraud are made?

(b) Whether the allegations of fraud are essentially, an allegation of fact which need examination of oral or documentary evidence and can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties before competent Civil Court?

(c) Whether the judgment in the case of Raj Kumari (supra) or the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Arora (supra) lays down the correct law?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Delay and Laches

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950,

Section - Article 226

Questions Referred

Whether the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should decline to entertain a writ petition on the ground of unexplained delay and laches is the subject-matter of several decisions of the Supreme Court?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Election Law

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 226, 243-O

Questions Referred

(a) Whether, constitutional remedy of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has been recognised as a basic feature of constitution in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 261 could be curtailed in view of the bar created under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India?

(b) Whether, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be refused to be entertained for the reason that a notification for holding the Panchayat elections has been issued by the State in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, even where: (i) vires of election laws is questioned, (ii) Government Orders issued for effecting the election are stated to be in breach of election laws/arbitrary, (iii) actual implementation by the State of election laws/Government Orders is stated to be in breach of the provisions, (iv) any other similar issue?

(c) Whether, the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the election process, if the elections are not being held in accordance with the Constitution of India or there is inherent defects or breaches of the election law making the entire election a mockery or a farce?

(d) Whether, this Court would permit ongoing process of election, in the facts of the present case, or not?

(e) Whether, the vires of the election laws as well as reservation of seats can be subjected to challenge only in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or else the aggrieved person is rendered remedy less?

(f) Whether, the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P. and others (supra) has laid down the correct law?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Education Service

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950,

Section - Article 226

Questions Referred

(I) Whether private institutions imparting education perform public duty, a State function, making them amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

(ii) Whether the Full Bench decision rendered in M.K. Gandhi and Division Bench judgment in Anjani Kumar Srivastava requires to be revisited in view of the Supreme Court decision rendered in Ramesh Ahluwalia.?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Education Service

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950,

Section - Article 12 and 226

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the element of public function and public duty inherent in the enterprise that an educational institution undertakes, conditions of service of teachers, whose functions are a sine qua non to the discharge of that public function or duty, can be regarded as governed by the private law of contract and with no remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution?

(ii) Whether the decision in Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2020(2) ADJ 409 is in teeth of the holding of the full bench in Roychan Abraham v. State of U.P. and others, 2019(3) ADJ 391 (FB)?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Special Appeal - Service Law

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950,

Section - Article 226 and 225

Act Name - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952,

Section - Chapter VIII Rule 5

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981,

Section -

Questions Referred

(a) Whether an intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against a judgment of single Judge in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India preferred against an order passed by an authority exercising appellate or revisional power under U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 would be maintainable?

(b) Whether the Division Bench decision in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru R.M. v. Abhay Raj Singh and 2 others (supra) or the earlier two Division Bench decisions, namely, Jageshwar Prasad Tiwari v. U.P.S.R.T.C. and others (supra) and Madan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others (supra), lays down the correct law ?

Subject

1. Tax - Indirect - Sales Tax
2. Circular

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, 2008

Section - S.52, S.79

Questions Referred

(i) Which of the two cases i.e. M/s. Prakash Transport Corporation v. CCT or M/s. S.B. International Gularbhoj v. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Lucknow, lays down the correct proposition of law?

(ii) Whether the Transit Declaration Form (TDF) is mandatory requirement in view to the circular issued by the Commissioner read with Section 52 of the Act and Rule 58 of the Rules or in the alternative upon non-production of the TDF on interception of the goods whether a presumption that the goods are meant for sale within the State can mandatorily be drawn in view of Section 52 read with Rule 58 and the circular dated 3 September 2013 issued by the Commissioner?

Subject

1. Civil Law - Municipalities
2. Interpretation of Statutes

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, 1916

Section - S. 48 (2a)

Questions Referred

Whether, notwithstanding the words 'such enquiry as it may consider necessary' used in Section 48(2A) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the State Government is obliged to hold a full fledged enquiry in every case where the State Government does not agree with the explanation of the President?

Subject

1. Civil Law - Agrarian
2. Territorial Jurisdiction

Statutes

Act Name - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, 1954

Section - S.48, S.11

Questions Referred

Whether the territorial jurisdiction to entertain/decide appeal or revision, against the order passed on the objection or appeal transferred outside the district will be at the transferred district or at the district where the subject-matter of dispute/unit situates?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
2. Power to revoke or modify detention order
3. Communication to detainee regarding his right to represent
4. Right to Represent

Statutes

Act Name - National Security Act, 1980, 1980

Section - S.14, 3(2)

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Art. 22

Questions Referred

(1) Whether the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority acting under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act is required to communicate to the person detained, regarding right of making re-presentation to him in view of Apex Court's decision in Kamlesh Kumar's case (supra)? If so, non-communication would infringe fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution?

(2) If the answer of question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether there is obligation on the District Magistrate (Detaining Authority) to communicate the detenu's right within which the detenu is required to make re-presentation to him i.e. before approval of the detention order by the State Government or before 12 days ? If so non-communication of above period will render the detention order invalid?

(3) Whether the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority has power to revoke or modify the detention order passed by him after its approval by the State Government? (4) Whether there is obligation on the District Magistrate/Detaining Authority to consider and decide the re-presentation of the detenu even after approval of the detention order by the State Government ?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education - Shiksha Mitra
2. Ban on Appointment

Statutes

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 16

Questions Referred

(A) Whether mere selection on a date prior to 2.6.2010 will confer a right upon the incumbent to claim appointment and for being sent for training as Shiksha Mitra even after the State Government has imposed a ban on such appointment on 2.6.2010 and the scheme of Shiksha Mitra itself has been dropped by the State Government?

(B) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Sonika Verma v. State of U.P. and others (supra) or the law laid down by the Division Benches in the case of Km. Rekha Singh v. State of U.P. and others (supra) and in the case of Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (supra) is the correct law?

Subject

1. Service Law - Education
2. Teachers Eligibility Test
3. Words and Phrases - Minimum Qualifications

Statutes

Act Name - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, 2009

Section - S. 21 (1)

Questions Referred

(a) What does the phrase ''minimum qualifications'' occurring in Section 23 (1) of the right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (the Act) mean - whether passing the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', is a qualification for the purposes of Section 23 (1), and it insistence by the NCTE in the Notification dated 23.8.2010 is in consonance with the powers delegated to the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act?

(b) Whether clause 3 (a) of the Notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 issued by the NCTE under Section 23 (1) of the Act, permits persons coming under the ambit of that clause to not undergo the 'Teacher's Eligibility Test', before they are eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers? What is the significance of the words ''shall also be eligible for appointment for Class-I to V upto 1st January, 2012, provided he undergoes, after appointment an NCTE recognized six months special programme in elementary education?

(c) Whether the opinion expressed by the Division Bench in Prabhakar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (1) ADJ 651 (DB), is correct in law?

Subject

1. Civil Law - Agrarian Law
2. Constitution - Article 226 - Maintainability

Statutes

Act Name - U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, 1951

Section - S. 122 B

Questions Referred

(i) Whether as per Section 122-B, sub-section (4-C), (4-D) and (4-E) of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, 1950, civil suit is the appropriate remedy to resolve the dispute?

(ii)Whether writ petition could lie against any order under sub-section irrespective of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of civil suit?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice
2. Doctrine of finality
3. Right to Juvenility - how claimed
4. Juvenility

Statutes

Act Name - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, 2000

Section - S.7-A and 68

Questions Referred

(I) Whether the right of a juvenile to raise the issue of juvenility can be denied, by dismissing a writ petition as infructuous and then permitting him to raise the issue in a criminal appeal when the same issue had been raised before the Juvenile Justice Board and an appeal had been decided in accordance with Section 52 of the 2000 Act as in the present case, on applying the doctrine of finality?

(ii) Whether the law laid down by prescribing a procedure of allowing the question to be raised in a criminal appeal as an alternate substitute through a miscellaneous application under the judgment dated 13.10.2014 by the learned Single Judge is correct or not? (iii) Whether in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court particularly in the case of Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain (supra) and Abdul Razzaq v. State of U.P. (supra), the issue presently raised, would also stand covered by the ratio and the observations made therein or not ?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice

Statutes

Act Name - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, 2000

Section - S.7-A and 68

Act Name - Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004,

Section -

Questions Referred

Whether the U.P. Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2004 need be recast consequent upon addition of Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as amended by Act No. 33 of 2006)?

Subject

1. Civil Law - Land Acquisition
2. Gairpushtaini Farmers
3. Pushtaini Farmers
4. Reasonable Classification

Statutes

Act Name - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 1894

Section - S.23, S.24 and S.55

Act Name - Constitution Of India, 1950, 1950

Section - Article 14

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Madhuri Srivastava, reported in 2016 (6) ADJ 1 is in conflict with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust and another v. Vithal Rao and others, (1973) 1 SCC 500 and also with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

(ii) Whether the classification made under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules 1997, the distinction made among ''Pushtaini and Gairpushtaini Farmers'' is a classification reasonable having nexus with the objects sought to be achieved?

Subject

1. Tax - Income Tax

Statutes

Act Name - Income Tax Act, 1961,

Section - 254(1), 12AA

Questions Referred

(i) Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while hearing Appeal in a matter where registration under Section 12AA has been denied by Commissioner Income Tax can itself pass an order directing Commissioner to grant registration or should leave the matter to be considered by Commissioner Income Tax to consider matter afresh giving rise to further litigation in the matter?

(ii) Whether co-extensive Appellate jurisdiction conferred upon Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being a last court of fact can be read to confer upon it similar powers as been exercised by authorities below whose orders are considered in Appeals by Tribunal?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Service Law

Statutes

Act Name - Police Act, 1861,

Section - 11(1)

Questions Referred

(i) Whether the judgments of the Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and the Division Bench in The Director General CRPF, New Delhi Vs. Constable Lalji Pandey are still good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and others? 2005 (1) UPLBEC 108,  Special Appeal No. 342 of 2010, (2014) 9 SCC 329?

(ii) Whether the decisions of the Division Bench in Bibhuti Narain Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India and others and Har Govind Singh Vs. Union of India and others are good law on the subject in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma? Special Appeal Defective No. 785 of 2014, Special Appeal No 158 of 2016?

(iii) Whether there is any conflict of opinion in the decisions of the Full Bench in Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Division Bench in Constable Lalji Pandey on one hand and in Bibhuti Narain Singh and Har Govind Singh on the other in the matter of exercise of territorial jurisdiction by the High Court in view of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the issue needs to be resolved by the authoritative decision of the Larger Bench?

Subject

1. Constitution - Writ - Criminal Law - Habeas Corpus

Statutes

Act Name - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015,

Section - 27

Questions Referred

(1) Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable against the judicial order passed by the Magistrate or by the Child Welfare Committee appointed under Section 27 of the Act, sending the victim to Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home?

(2) Whether detention of a corpus in Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home pursuant to an order (may be improper) can be termed/viewed as an illegal detention?

(3) Under the Scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the welfare and safety of child in need of care and protection is the legal responsibility of the Board/Child Welfare Committee and as such, the proposition that even a minor cannot be sent to Women Protection Home/Nari Niketan/Juvenile Home/Child Care Home against his/her wishes, is legally valid or it requires a modified approach in consonance with the object of the Act?

Subject

1. Criminal Law - SC/ST - CrPC

Statutes

Act Name - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989,

Section - 14A

Questions Referred

(i) Whether a Single Judge of this Court while deciding Criminal Appeal (Defective) No. 523/2017 In re : Rohit v. State of U.P. and another vide judgment dated 29.8.2017 correctly permitted the conversion of appeal under Section 14 A of the Act, 1989 into a bail application by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

ii) Whether keeping in view the judgment of Rohit (supra), an aggrieved person will have two remedies available of preferring an appeal under the provisions of Section 14 A of the Act, 1989 as well as a bail application under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.?

(iii) Whether an aggrieved person who has not availed of the remedy of an appeal under the provisions of Section 14 A of Act, 1989 can be allowed to approach the High Court by preferring an application under the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

(iv) What would be the remedy available to an aggrieved person who has failed to avail the remedy of appeal under the provision of Act, 1989 and the time period for availing the said remedy has also lapsed?