Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Mukund Asthana appearing for the respondents. The work with regard to distribution of Mid Day Meal earlier was assigned to the village Pradhans. By the impugned order the Government took a decision to distribute the Mid Day Meal through the Mahila Samakhya, a society consisting of the ladies. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that by relegating the right to issue by the Mahila Samakhya the cause shall be increased manifold. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that only in some districts this provision has been made not for all the districts It is a policy matter taken by the State Government relegating the power to different body taking away it from the village Pradhans. The decision as to how to Mid Day Meal is to be distributed in terms of the Government Orders, rules and regulations is to be taken by the State Government. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No statutory or fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated on account of the impugned order. Accordingly the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. ………………. Hhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1045] S.K. Singh, Pankaj Naqvi Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37286 of 2005, decided on February 24, 2012 Union of India and another Petitioners Vs. Accordingly the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. ………………. Hhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1045] S.K. Singh, Pankaj Naqvi Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37286 of 2005, decided on February 24, 2012 Union of India and another Petitioners Vs. Shyama Charan Tiwari and others Respondents Service -- Pensionary benefit claim for, by temporary employee, engaged as labourer in N.E. Railway, after serving in Army Service for nine years -- Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1963, Chapter XXIII, Rule 2301 -- Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989, Chapter XV, Rule 1501 and Chapter XXV, Rule 2511 (replaced subsequently by Rule 2511) -- Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, Rule 3 (23) -- Railway Ministry Circular, dated 15.4.1987, Paragraph 10.1 -- Claim for pensionary benefit-Availability, to persons engaged in N.E. Railway -- Law relating to -- Examined by High Court by considering all relevant materials -- it was found that it is available to casual employees only and not to claimants who retired from N.E. Railway service after attaining only temporary status of casual employee -- Claimant in the instant case was not casual employee -- He had attained only temporary status of casual employee -- As such, he was not entitled for pensionary benefits -- Tribunal committed legal error by giving direction to grant pensionary benefit to claimant in the instant case -- High Court, setting aside order of Tribunal, rejected his claim. (Paras 19 to 22) Case law. -- 1. AIR 1988 SC 390 ; 2, (1997) 6 SCC 580 ; 3. (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 399 and 4. Union of India v. Smt Somivati. (Civil Misc. Writ Peittion No. 46149 of 2011, decided on 23.12.2011) (All) (DB) -- Relied on;5.1996 (1) AISLJ 116 (SC) -- Explained. ……………….. hhhhhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1052] S.K. Singh And Pankaj Naqvi, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34099 of 2006, decided on February 24, 2012 Mohd. Unis Khan Quadri Petitioner Vs. Union of India v. Smt Somivati. (Civil Misc. Writ Peittion No. 46149 of 2011, decided on 23.12.2011) (All) (DB) -- Relied on;5.1996 (1) AISLJ 116 (SC) -- Explained. ……………….. hhhhhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1052] S.K. Singh And Pankaj Naqvi, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34099 of 2006, decided on February 24, 2012 Mohd. Unis Khan Quadri Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others Respondents Service -- Punishment awarded to Bank Officer -- Of derogation towards lower stage in his incremental scale -- Propriety of -- In enquiry all documents and defences taken by him considered -- But he took plea that principles of natural justice were violated because few documents which she demanded, were not supplied to him, therefore, she was denied fair enquiry -- High Court clarified law on violation of natural justice by help of judicial pronouncements, holding that it is necessary for delinquent officer to show as to how he was prejudiced by non-supply of particular document -- In the instant case, petitioner was supplied all relevant documents related to charges framed against him -- When petitioner took plea of non-observance of natural justice, it was incumbent upon him to show as to how his defence was affected and which was the document which was not supplied to him and how it was relevant -- Petitioner failed to show these necessary factors -- As such, High Court found that principles of natural justice were not violated -- Punishment awarded to petitioner was not disproportionate to nature of charges -- It was emphasized by High Court that petitioner being a bank officer was entrusted with duties which reposed trust and confidence -- Any overt act of petitioner affects interest and reputation of bank. (Paras 14 to 18) Case law. -- 1. (1996) 3 SCC 364 ; 2. (1996) 5 SCC (sic); 3. (2002) 3 SCC 443 ; 4. (2006) 3 SCC 150 and 5. (2011) 2 SCC 316 -- Relied on. ……………… Hhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1058] RAKESH TIWARI AND DINESH GUPTA, JJ. Special Appeal No. 1762 of 2008 decided on December 8, 2011 Km. Lalti Devi Appellant Vs. -- 1. (1996) 3 SCC 364 ; 2. (1996) 5 SCC (sic); 3. (2002) 3 SCC 443 ; 4. (2006) 3 SCC 150 and 5. (2011) 2 SCC 316 -- Relied on. ……………… Hhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1058] RAKESH TIWARI AND DINESH GUPTA, JJ. Special Appeal No. 1762 of 2008 decided on December 8, 2011 Km. Lalti Devi Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and others Respondents Service -- Appointment -- On post of Health Worker -- Application as such rejected on the ground that appellant does not fulfil the minimum age as prescribed -- Advertisement provided minimum 18 years age for married and divorcee candidates and 30 years for unmarried candidate is arbitrary -- As per respondent minimum age for the applicants, who are unmarried should be 30 years and there is no illegality in the advertisement -- Impugned advertisement issued in pursuance of the guidelines issued -- Appellant not able to demonstrate that the fixation of minimum age is arbitrary -- Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5 to 11) Case law. -- (1981) 4 SCC 335 . ………………. Hhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1077] SUNIL AMBWANI AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37121 of 2011, decided on January 13, 2012 Minshu Saxena Petitioner Vs. (Paras 5 to 11) Case law. -- (1981) 4 SCC 335 . ………………. Hhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1077] SUNIL AMBWANI AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37121 of 2011, decided on January 13, 2012 Minshu Saxena Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others Respondents Service -- Termination of bank employee during probation period prior to confirmation on post of Middle Management Grade Scale II service -- State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992, Rules, 16 (3) and 16 (2) -- Termination of petitioner under Rule 16 (3) -- Prior to her confirmation, i.e. during her probation period -- She was appointed on post of Middle Management Grade Scale II Service of Bank -- It was alleged in termination letter that she was suspected to use unfair means while giving answers of descriptive questions in her first confirmation test -- Order of termination was passed without giving her opportunity of hearing -- This order of termination was passed or report of Institution of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) -- High Court examined entire materials on record and found that order of termination was punitive in nature -- Describing principle of "Motive" and "Foundation" and also principle of "Form" and "Substance", High Court found that foundation of termination was suspicion of use of mains in first confirmation examination, therefore, order of termination is against law and deserves to be set aside -- It was also found that methodology adopted for reaching to conclusion of suspected use of unfair mains by IBPS was also arbitrary -- High Court holding termination to be camouflage to punish petitioner, quashed order of punishment and directed for evaluation of disruptive paper afresh -- Till fresh decision, petitioner was permitted to continue in service with continuity and directed for payment of employment payable to her -- She was directed to be given back-wages of 50% also. (Paras 18,19 and 22 to 26) Case law. -- 1. (2008) 3 SCC 310 ; 2. (2002) 1 SCC 520 and 3. (2001) 9 SCC 319 -- Considered; 4. AIR 2010 SC 3493 ; 5. (1999) 3 SCC 60 ; 6. (1999) 2 SCC 21 and 7. (1984) 2 SCC 369 -- Relied on. …………….. Hhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1105] SUNIL MALI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Peittion No. 7682 of 2007, decided on December 22, 2011 Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Petitioner Vs. AIR 2010 SC 3493 ; 5. (1999) 3 SCC 60 ; 6. (1999) 2 SCC 21 and 7. (1984) 2 SCC 369 -- Relied on. …………….. Hhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1105] SUNIL MALI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Peittion No. 7682 of 2007, decided on December 22, 2011 Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Petitioner Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another Respondents Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25-F -- Termination of services -- Reinstatement with full back wages -- Challenge against -- Scope -- Workman-respondent No. 2 has been reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits -- Admittedly, workman worked for more than 240 days -- His termination order could not have been passed unless retrenchment compensation was paid to him -- However, quashing of termination order would not necessary lead to a ground of back wages -- Workman not entitled to full back wages -- Workman held entitled to only 50% of back wages. (Paras 9 to 15) Counsel. -- Sri Vivek Kumar Birla, for the petitioner; Sri R.M. Shukla, Sri Shesh Kumar, Sri Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava, Addl. S.G.I., for the respondents. …………….. Hhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1117] SUNIL AMBWANI AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21633 of 2011, decided on January 13, 2012 Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi Petitioner Vs. (Paras 9 to 15) Counsel. -- Sri Vivek Kumar Birla, for the petitioner; Sri R.M. Shukla, Sri Shesh Kumar, Sri Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava, Addl. S.G.I., for the respondents. …………….. Hhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1117] SUNIL AMBWANI AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21633 of 2011, decided on January 13, 2012 Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi Petitioner Vs. Government of India, Ministry of Finance and others Respondents Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, Section 29 -- Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1988, Rule 4 -- Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other Employees) Rules, 1998 -- Service -- Promotion -- Determination of eligibility for -- Petitioner initially appointed as Junior Clerk and was promoted as Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier -- Petitioner sought promotion to the post of Officer Scale-I -- On detailed Staff assessment, total number of 399 vacancies were worked put as on 31.3.2010, including 136 vacancies of Officers Scale-I -- Out of that 68 were to be filled up by promotion and 68 by direct recruitment -- Since those vacancies were worked out on the assessment of staff and business level as on 31.3.2010, they have to be treated as vacancies, which were identified to be filled up after the enforcement of the 1998 Rules -- Promotion, therefore, under the Rules of 1998, which came into force from 29.7.1998, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, in which minimum merit has to be found by subjecting the candidates to written examination and interview, and in which seniority is not sacrified, is both in the interest of the employees, and the Bank -- Petitioner not allowed to challenge the entire process for promotion in 1998 Rules -- Petition dismissed. (Paras 16 to 20) Case law. -- 1. 1997 (1) SCC 419 and 2. 1998 (9) SCC 133. Counsel. -- Sri B.B. Paul and Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner; A.S.G.L, Sri Y.K. Sinha, Sri G.P. Srivastava, Sri. O.P. Srivastava, Sri S. Tiwari and C.S.C., for the respondents. …………………. Hhhhhhhhhhhhh [ (2012) 2 UPLBEC 1138 ] RAKESH TIWARI AND RAMESH SINHA, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52693 of 2002, decided on December 9, 2011 Dr. Dinesh Rai Petitioner Vs. O.P. Srivastava, Sri S. Tiwari and C.S.C., for the respondents. …………………. Hhhhhhhhhhhhh [ (2012) 2 UPLBEC 1138 ] RAKESH TIWARI AND RAMESH SINHA, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52693 of 2002, decided on December 9, 2011 Dr. Dinesh Rai Petitioner Vs. State of U.P. and others Respondents Service -- Regularisation of -- Scope and requisites -- Mandamus sought for directing the respondents to regularise the services of petitioner on the post of lecturer -- No appointment letter issued by respondent No. 3 for appointing the petitioner on the aforesaid post -- As per documents on record petitioner was teaching on contractual basis -- A certificate showing period of contractual work alleged to have been issued on behalf of the Degree College cannot take place of appointment letter -- Thus, a part-time lecturer on contractual basis has no right to claim as such -- Recruitment has to be made in accordance with law -- High Court should not normally direct regularisation -- Petitioner dismissed. (Paras 19 to 22) Case law. -- 1. 1991 (2) SCC 599 ; 2.1992 (1) SLR SC 643; 3. K. Ranu Tewari v. The Director Higher Education, CMWP No. 4812 of 1998; 4. Dr. Awadhesh Singh and others v. Director Education (Higher) Allahabad, CMWP No. 27683 of 1993; 5. 1995 SCC (Lrs) 269 and 6. (2006) 2 UPLBEC 1880 (SC). …………… Hhhhhhhhhh [(2012) 2 UPLBEC 1143] SUNIL AMBWANI AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17162 of 2011, decided on January 13, 2012 Dr. Subodh Saxena Petitioner Vs. State of U.P. and others Respondents Service -- Appointment -- Of Ayush doctors -- Cancellation of -- Petitioner assailed the order of cancellation of selection on the ground that it has been passed only on suspicion without there being any cogent material to justify cancellation of the entire selection result -- Entire selection was dependant on interview -- And out of a total of 130 candidates, 110 candidates secured identical marks from few members of the Interviewing Panel -- Whereas they awarded different marks to only 20 candidates from whom 12 were shortlisted for selection -- Thus, decision of the Government in calling for a fresh selection to the post cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal -- Jurisdiction of Government to take suitable action upheld -- Mere selection does not provide any indefeasible right to candidate -- Petition dismissed. (Paras 15 to 19) Case law. -- 1. 2009 (3) AWC 233; 2. 2009 (1) AWC 391 ; 3. 2006 (11) SCC 356 -- Followed.