Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 701 (ALL)

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2020-03-04

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel, the present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. The present writ petition has been filed stating that the petitioners appeared in the Physical Standard Verification Test and were disqualified on the ground that the height of the petitioners was below the prescribed minimum height of 168 cm. The petitioners preferred their objections in terms of Rule 15(3) (gha) of Uttar Pradesh Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2017") but no orders were passed on their representation. 4. The petitioners' case is that their height is above the prescribed minimum height and they have been wrongly deprived of their right for consideration for appointment. 5. This Court on 3.2.2020 passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead "Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur" as respondent No. 5 in the array of parties during the course of the day. Heard counsel for the petitioners, standing counsel for the State and perused the material on record. In the present petition, similar controversy arises. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the height of the petitioners was above the prescribed height limit of 168 centimeters, however, they have been denied only on erroneous computation of the height of the petitioners. The petitioners claim that they have certificates issued by the Medical Authorities to establish that their heights are above the prescribed limit of 168 centimeters. In view of the contrary reports, I deem it appropriate to direct that the petitioners shall appear alongwith certified copy of this order before the Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur on 10.2.2020. The petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, each as cost with Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur. The Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur is directed to constitute a Medical Board constituting of three Doctors of the level of Professor and Associate Professor available at the local District Hospital. The C.M.O. shall also inform the S.S.P. of the District, who shall depute an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to remain present before the Board on 10.2.2020. The C.M.O. shall also inform the S.S.P. of the District, who shall depute an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to remain present before the Board on 10.2.2020. The petitioners shall also produce materials in support of their identity before the Medical Board. The petitioners shall appear before the Medical Board on 10.2.2020 and would be medically examined with regard-to their heights by the Board of three doctors. The report signed by the Chairman of the Board would be sent through the Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur before this Court on or before 25.2.2020. This report would constitute the basis for the Court to determine as to whether the report of the Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board is liable to be questioned or not? Post this matter in the additional cause list on 25.2.2020 before the appropriate Court. The matter shall not be treated as tied-up or part heard to this Court." 6. In compliance of the order dated 3.2.2020, the Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur submitted his report in a sealed cover envelope, which has been opened before this Court and the same has been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and it has not been disputed by them. As per the report the height of the petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 has been found to be 168 cm. or above. 7. Petitioner No. 6 did not appear before the Board, as such, his height could not be measured in terms of the order dated 3.2.2020. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that second physical standard test could not be directed to be conducted and the report in compliance of such a direction cannot be relied upon for direction to the respondents for the reliefs prayed in the writ petition. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2366-2367 of 2011 (State of U.P. and others v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi), decided on 25.7.2013 (Paragraph Nos. 21, 22 and 23) as well as on the case of Om Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary, Home Lucknow and others, passed in Service Single No. 1773 of 2020, decided on 31.1.2020 by this Court. 9. 2366-2367 of 2011 (State of U.P. and others v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi), decided on 25.7.2013 (Paragraph Nos. 21, 22 and 23) as well as on the case of Om Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary, Home Lucknow and others, passed in Service Single No. 1773 of 2020, decided on 31.1.2020 by this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ A No. 1364 of 2020 (Prateek Kumar and 3 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others), decided on 25.2.2020 by this Court and has submitted that in view of the" report a direction may be issued for consideration of the petitioners' case for the appointment. He submits that the judgments cited by the learned Standing Counsel were duly considered by this Court and thereafter the directions were issued in the case of Prateek Kumar (supra). 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. This Court in the case of Prateek Kumar (supra) after considering paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment in Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra) as well as the case of Om Pal Singh (supra) passed the following judgment/order: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioners appeared in the Physical Standard Verification Test and were disqualified stating that the height of the petitioners was less than prescribed minimum height of 168 cm. The petitioners preferred their objections on the same day in terms of Rule 15(3) (gha) of Uttar Pradesh Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2017, however, no orders were passed thereupon as such the petitioners approached this Court alleging that the height of the petitioners is more than the prescribed minimum height of 168 cm and they have been wrongly deprived of their rights to participate in the Physical Examination Test and also to be considered for appointment. This Court, vide its order dated 27.1.2020, had directed the height of the petitioners to be verified by a Medical Board comprising of three Senior Doctors in the presence of the representative of the Senior Superintendent of Police. The Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar has submitted a report in a sealed cover in terms of the directions issued by this Court. This Court, vide its order dated 27.1.2020, had directed the height of the petitioners to be verified by a Medical Board comprising of three Senior Doctors in the presence of the representative of the Senior Superintendent of Police. The Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar has submitted a report in a sealed cover in terms of the directions issued by this Court. The sealed cover was opened in the Court and the contents were perused and is taken on record. A perusal of the report makes it clear that the height of petitioner No. 3 has been found to be 168.9 cm whereas the height of petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 have been found to be less than 168 cm which is the qualifying height. Thus, the petition, on behalf of petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4, stands dismissed. The Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2366-2367 of 2011(State of U.P. and others v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi), decided on 25.7.2013 in Para No. 21, 22 and 23 which is reproduced hereinbelow to argue that in view of the observations made as quoted above, this Court cannot issue directions on the basis of the second physical standard test conducted in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court. Para 21, 22 and 23 are quoted as under: 21. It is accepted position that the respondent appeared in the test and could not qualify. Once he did not qualify in the physical test, the High Court could not have asked the department to give him an opportunity to hold another test to extend him the benefit of compassionate appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector solely on the ground that there has been efflux of time. The respondent after being disqualified in the physical test could not have claimed as a matter of right and demand for an appointment in respect of a particular post and the High Court could not have granted further opportunity after the crisis was over. 22. In our considered opinion, the order passed by the Division Bench is wholly unsustainable and is hereby set aside. We may, however, hasten to add that it is open to the respondent to compete in the normal course if eligible for the post of Sub-Inspector for promotion in accordance with rules prescribed for promotion. 23. 22. In our considered opinion, the order passed by the Division Bench is wholly unsustainable and is hereby set aside. We may, however, hasten to add that it is open to the respondent to compete in the normal course if eligible for the post of Sub-Inspector for promotion in accordance with rules prescribed for promotion. 23. At this juncture, we have been apprised at the Bar that following the decision of the Division Bench which has been set aside in this appeal, in subsequent writ petitions and appeals the High Court has directed the Department to hold a second physical test and to keep the results in a sealed cover. As we have already opined that the second physical test could not have been directed to be held for the purpose of extending the benefit of compassionate appointment, the sealed covers need not be opened. Needless to say, the candidates therein are also entitled to compete for promotion in accordance with the rules. The judgement of the Supreme Court arose from the request for appointment on compassionate grounds in which the petitioner, being a applicant failed in the Physical Examination Test and was thus not offered appointment on compassionate grounds. Paragraph 21 of the judgement of the Supreme Court records that it is the accepted position that the respondent appeared in the test and could not qualify and on that basis the observations, as recorded above, were made by the Supreme Court. I am afraid that the ratio laid down has no applicability to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, no orders have been passed non-suiting the petitioners on the ground their having failed the Physical Examination Test, only the petitioners were orally informed that they were non-suited on account of their height being less than the prescribed minimum height even the objections filed by the petitioners were not disposed off as such the petitioners approached this Court disputing and alleging that the height of the petitioners was above the prescribed minimum height and they based their claim on the certificates as annexed in different writ petitions and in one case a certificate issued by the recruitment agency pertaining to different recruitment. Non suited and also claimed before this Court that their height was above the prescribed minimum height. Non suited and also claimed before this Court that their height was above the prescribed minimum height. In view of there being no stand of the State that the petitioners' were non-suited on account of their height being less than the prescribed limit and the petitioners alleging that without passing any orders, the petitioners have been found This Court directed the Physical Examination Test to be carried out by the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar by constituting a team of three Senior Doctors in the presence of the representatives of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar, the said order has not been challenged. Thus, the submission of the Standing Counsel is based upon the judgement in the case of State of U.P and others v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi cannot be accepted as in the present case no orders have been passed holding that the petitioners were non-suited on account of their height being less than the prescribed minimum height. It is no doubt true that the Physical Examination Test cannot be ordered as a routine, however, in the present case, no orders were passed indicating as to what what the height determined in respect of the petitioners in the Physical Verification Test and further no orders have been passed on the representation/objections filed by the petitioners on the same very day as such the petitioners exercised their rights of approaching this Court and the Court thus exercised its power in ordering a Physical Verification Test by three Member Committee. Thus, the submission of Standing Counsel placing reliance on the judgment of State of U.P. and others v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra) cannot be accepted in view of the facts of the present case. The next judgment cited by Standing Counsel is by the Single Judge of this Court in case of Om Pal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary, Home Lucknow and others, passed in Service Single No. 1773 of 2020, decided on 31.1.2020 wherein the Court relied upon the provisions of Rule 15(3)gha of Uttar Pradesh Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 2017') which provides for a forum for raising objection by the candidate, if he is not satisfied with the height of measurement, and in view of the said Rule, the Court refused to entertain the petitions for re-measurement of height. I am of the view that the said judgment cannot be relied upon in the facts of the present case, as admittedly, no orders were passed holding that the petitioner did not have the requisite height and no orders were passed on the remedy availed by the petitioner as provided under Rule 15(3)(gha) of the Rules 2017, as such, I am not impressed by the said arguments also. Thus, the only evidence available on the records is the report submitted by the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar which indicates that the height of the petitioner No. 3 is above the minimum prescribed height of 168 cm and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same as the same has been conducted by three Senior members in the presence of representative of the Senior Superintendent of Police and, consequently, on the basis of the reports submitted by the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar, directions are issued to the Chairman/Secretary, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, (respondent No. 2) to consider the case of the petitioner No. 3 i.e. Rupendra, son of Shri Nepal, for appointment because his height is above 168 cm subject to the petitioner No. 3 fulfilling of other criteria. The said exercise is to be completed by the respondent No. 2, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Office is directed to supply a copy of the report to the Standing Counsel without payment of usual charges. So far as petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned, the writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, the writ petition is disposed off in terms of the order passed above." 12. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the judgment of this Court in the case of Prateek Kumar (supra). It has also not been disputed that the petitioners' objections/representations were not decided. It has also not been disputed that the order dated 3.2.2020 passed in the present writ petition has not been challenged. He has also not disputed the report of CMO, Gorakhpur. The only ground raised by him is on the strength of the judgment in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra) of Supreme Court and Om Pal Singh (supra) of this Court, but without disputing the judgment of this Court in the case of Prateek Kumar (supra) which has considered the aforesaid judgments. 13. The only ground raised by him is on the strength of the judgment in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra) of Supreme Court and Om Pal Singh (supra) of this Court, but without disputing the judgment of this Court in the case of Prateek Kumar (supra) which has considered the aforesaid judgments. 13. However, I also proceed to consider the judgments cited by learned Standing Counsel. 14. In the case of State of U.P. and others v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, (2013) 11 SCC 178 , upon which learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance, the respondent therein was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Constable and he had joined the same on 28.6.2003. Later on, physical test was conducted in the year 2005 for the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) in which the said respondent had participated but was unsuccessful, as a result of which, his candidature for the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) was rejected. The respondent filed a writ petition for the grant of compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police), without being subjected to appear in physical test and interview. The writ petition was dismissed but special appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, was allowed, directing the authorities to grant compassionate appointment after subjecting the respondent to physical test once again. The matter reached to the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that once compassionate appointment was given on the post of Constable, for the second time, no compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) could be given, particularly, when respondent did not succeed in physical test. 15. In the case of Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra) the orders/letter-circular issued by Inspector General in pursuance of Rule 8(2) of the Rules 1974, as involved in that case, provided that the candidate selected to the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) should carry physical competency and fitness. A perusal of the circular, as quoted in paragraph 17 of the judgment in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra), does not show that there was any provision for re-physical examination test, to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment for the second time. A perusal of the circular, as quoted in paragraph 17 of the judgment in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra), does not show that there was any provision for re-physical examination test, to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment for the second time. As such, the candidate could not have claimed as a matter of right, physical test after having been disqualified in first physical test, in view of Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 1974 read with the circular of Inspector General, which circular, as held by the Apex Court, did not travel beyond the Rules but it was in furtherance of the same. 16. So far as the present case is concerned Rule 15(3)(D) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constables Service Rules, 2017 is being reproduced hereunder: "(D) If any candidate is not satisfied with his Physical Standard Test, he/she may file an objection on the same day after the test. For clearing all such objection; the Board shall nominate one Additional Superintendent of Police at every place and Physical Standard Test of all such candidates will be conducted again by the Committee in the presence of the said nominated Additional Superintendent of Police. All those candidates who are again found unsuccessful in the Physical Standard Test, will be declared unfit for recruitment and no further appeal will be entertained in this regard." 17. Thus as per Rule 15(3)(D) of the Rules 2017, if any candidate is not satisfied with his Physical Standard Test, he may file an objection on the same day, after the test. For clearing all such objections; the Board shall nominate one Additional Superintendent of Police at every place and Physical Standard Test of such candidates will be conducted again, by the Committee, in the presence of the said nominated Additional Superintendent of Police. If the candidate is again found unsuccessful, he will be declared unfit for recruitment and no further appeal will be entertained in this regard. In the present case, the Rule itself confers right on the candidates, who having been found unfit in the first Physical Standard Test, to file objection on the same day, after the test, for conducting second Physical Standard Test. 18. In the present case, the petitioners being not satisfied with their Physical Standard Test raised objection on the same day. In the present case, the Rule itself confers right on the candidates, who having been found unfit in the first Physical Standard Test, to file objection on the same day, after the test, for conducting second Physical Standard Test. 18. In the present case, the petitioners being not satisfied with their Physical Standard Test raised objection on the same day. and requested the authorities that their Physical Standard Test be held once again, in terms of Rule 15(3)(D), but no attention was paid to the objections of the petitioners. 19. The judgment in case of Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra) of the Apex Court is, thus, distinguishable, as in the present case, the provision exists for conducting Physical Standard Test, once again, for which the petitioners made request before the authorities. Besides, the present case is not a case of appointment on compassionate ground. In the case of Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra), the respondent therein had been given benefit of appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Constable and as such the same benefit could not be given to him for the second time, for the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police). 20. The judgment in the case of Om Pal Singh (supra) relied by the learned Standing Counsel is also distinguishable, as in the said case, the petitioner therein had written to the authorities in his own hand writing that he was satisfied with the manner his height had been measured. In the present case, the petitioners have specifically stated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that none of the authorities have paid any heed to their request of re-measurement/re-test for Physical Standard in a fair and proper manner in presence of a superior police authority. The case of Om Pal Singh is, thus, not of any help to the respondents. 21. Once Rule 15(3)(D) of the Rules 2017, provides for conducting Physical Standard Test, in case the candidate who has been unsuccessful for the first time, raises objection and as the petitioners in the present case raised such grievance/objection, they have right under Rule 15(3)(D) of the Rules 2017 for their Physical Standard Test being conducted, once again. 21. Once Rule 15(3)(D) of the Rules 2017, provides for conducting Physical Standard Test, in case the candidate who has been unsuccessful for the first time, raises objection and as the petitioners in the present case raised such grievance/objection, they have right under Rule 15(3)(D) of the Rules 2017 for their Physical Standard Test being conducted, once again. Since, the authorities did not pay any attention to their objection, although they ought to have done so, in view of Rule 15(3)(D) of the Rules 2017, the authorities have failed to discharge their statutory duty infringing the petitioners' legal right to re-measurement of their chest/Physical Standard Test. 22. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that this Court could not direct holding of Physical Standard Test for the petitioners for the second time, and the report of the Board submitted through the Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur, for that reason, cannot be considered for issue of direction in favour of the petitioners, deserves to be rejected as misconceived. The order passed by this Court dated 3.2.2020 by which the directions were issued to the Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur to constitute a Medical Board, consisting of three Doctors of the level of Professor and Associate Professor available at the District Hospital, for medical examination of the petitioners, and submission of the report signed by the Chairman of the Board, through the Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur, has not been challenged before the appropriate forum. 23. Besides, Rule 15(3)(D) of the Rules 2017 provides for holding of Physical Standard Test for the second time, by the committee, in the presence of the nominated. Additional Superintendent of Police, as nominated by the Board. If the Board failed to nominate one Additional Superintendent of Police and Committee failed to conduct Physical Standard Test again, in the presence of such nominated Additional Superintendent of Police, in spite of the petitioners' objection with respect to their first Physical Standard Test, this Court has ample power and jurisdiction under article 226 of Constitution of India to direct the petitioners' re-examination by the Medical Board consisting of three Doctors of the level of Professor and Associate Professors to enforce the petitioners' statutory right, violated by the respondents, for advancement of justice. The direction given by this Court by order dated 3.2.2020, took care of Rule 15(3)(D) inasmuch as the re-examination was directed to be conducted in the presence of an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to be deputed by the Senior Superintendent of Police of the district, which is also the requirement of the said Rule. 24. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1966 SC 81 , has held that Article 226 is couched in a comprehensive phraseology and ex facie confers a wide power on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. The paragraph-4 of Dwarka Nath's case (supra) is being reproduced as under: "4. We shall first take the preliminary objection, for if we maintain it, no other question will arise for consideration. Article 226 of the Constitution reads: "... every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose." This article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the high Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. The constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purposes for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression "nature", for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with the those in England, but only draws in analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary from of Government to a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself. To say this is not to say that the High Courts can function arbitrarily under this Article. Some limitations are implicit in the article and others may be evolved to direct the article through defined channels. This interpretation has been accepted by this Court in T.C. Basappa v. Nagappa, 1955-1 SCR 250 : (AIR 1951 SC 440) and Irani v. State of Madras, 1962 (2) SCR 169 : ( AIR 1961 SC 1731 ).' 25. In the case of Prateek Kumar (supra), this Court directed for consideration of the case of the petitioner No. 3 therein, for appointment as his height was found above 168 cm on the basis of the report submitted by the Board through the Chief Medical Officer, under the orders of this Court passed in that writ petition. 26. In view of the above, I find that the benefit as extended to the petitioners of Writ A No. 1364 of 2020 (Prateek Kumar and 3 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others), decided on 25.2.2020 by this Court, deserves to be given to the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of this writ petition in the following terms. 27. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed with the following directions, with respect to petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. 1. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 shall be permitted to appear for next stage of recruitment i.e. Physical Efficiency Test, as provided by Rule 15(4) of the Rules 2017, and thereafter, if found successful in Physical Efficiency Test, they shall be considered for selection and final merit list. 1. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 shall be permitted to appear for next stage of recruitment i.e. Physical Efficiency Test, as provided by Rule 15(4) of the Rules 2017, and thereafter, if found successful in Physical Efficiency Test, they shall be considered for selection and final merit list. The petitioners shall be considered in next stages, in accordance with Rule 15(4) of the Recruitment Rules, considering that the petitioners have been found successful in the Physical Standard Test, conducted by the Board constituted in terms of the order dated 3.2.2020 passed by this Court. This exercise shall be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Chairman/'Secretary, the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, 19C, Tulsiganga Complex Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow, respondent-4 2. Office is directed to supply a certified copy of the report to the learned Standing Counsel free of cost who shall transmit it to respondent-4/Chairman/'Secretary, the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, 19C, Tulsiganga Complex Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow. 3. The said report shall form part of the record of the present writ petition as well. 28. The writ petition is dismissed with respect to petitioner-6.