Team Code: W11

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF

PURVANCHAL

W. P. NO. _______ OF 2014

In the matter of

Employment Rights and Justice Forum (ERJF)

(Claimant)

v.

Government of Purvanchal

(Respondent)

WRITTEN SUBMITION ON BEHALF OF THE

CLAIMANT

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT – 2014

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIETION........................................................................ 1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................……. 2

BOOKS................................................................................................... ……. 2

JUDGEMENTS CITED.............................................................................……. 3

WEB SOURCES........................................................................................ ……. 4

STATUTES REFERRED........................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION................................................................ 6

QUESTIONS PRESENTED........................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................. 8

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS....................................................................... 9

PLEADINGS/ARGUMENTS ADVACNED.................................................... 11

1. ORDER OF TERMINATION HAVING CLEAR CIVIL CONSEQUENCES

ON THE PETITIONER IS BAD IN LAW ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, MORE SPECIFICALLY
RIGHT TO BE HEARD…………………………………………………… 11

1.1 The Impugned Directions Violate the Principles of Natural Justice...... 11

1.2 ‘Doctrine of Pleasure’ being imposed............................................... 13

1.3 Violation of ‘procedure by law’ under Art 21................................... 14

2. THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE REPORT OF

THE LOKAYUKTA’S REPORT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, SINCE
AT NO POINT OF TIME THE PETITIONERS WERE MADE PARTY TO
SUCH ENQUIRY................................................................................ 15
 2.1 Violation of Art 14 of Constitution of India...................................... 15

2.2 Reconsideration of the Government’s Decision to Terminate............... 17

3. ACTION MERELY BASED ON ALLEGATION BY ONE CANDIDATE,

AND WITHOUT REVELATION OF ANY FINDINGS BY THE
LOKAYUKTA AS THE PROOF OF CORRUPTION IS
UNJUSTIFIED..................................................................................... 19

3.1 Violation of ‘Right to life’ under Art 21........................................... 19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF................................................................................... 21

 TABLE OF ABBREVIETION

& - And

AIR - All India Reporter

Anr - Another

Art - Article

Dept - Department

ERJF - Employment Rights and Justice Forum

Govt - Government

Hon’ble - Honorable

Ors - Others

PBP - Purvanchal Bachao Party

PPP - Purvanchal People’s Party

PSPSC - Purvanchal State Public Service Commission

SC - Supreme Court

SCC - Supreme Court Cases

SCR - Supreme Court Reporter

UOI - Union of India

v - Versus

1
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

1. ARVIND P DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA, (Vol 3 2007)
2. BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (2ed 2014)
3. DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (Vol 2,
2012)
4. J.N.PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (48th ed 2011)
5. M.P.JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (7th ed 2014)

2
 JUDGEMENT CITED

1. Ajit Kumar Nag v General Manager (P.J.), Indian

Oil Corporation Ltd, Haldia and Ors, 10CL [(2005) 7 SCC 764]…..……….. 11
2. Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy, AIR 2005 SC 2090.................................... 17
3. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank
and Othrs v P.C.Kakkar, AIR 2003 SC 1571.............................................. 17
4. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597;
1978 SCR (2) 621………………………………………………….…... 12, 14, 19
5. Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr v The Chief Election,
1978 AIR 851, 1978 SCR (3) 272.................................................... 12, 14
6. Motiram Deka v North Eastern Frontier Railway,
AIR 1964 SC 600 (606).......................................................................... 13
7. Nepal Singh v State of UP, AIR 1985 SC 84 (86)............................... 16
8. Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, [2002]SUPP5SCR605................... 15
9. State of Manipur and Ors. v Y. Token Singh and
Ors., (2007)5 SCC 65............................................................................ 12
10. State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Bina Pani & Ors,
AIR 1967 SC 1269; (1967) 2 SCR 625………………………..…….…. 11

3
 WEB SOURCES

 www.manupatra.com

 www.scconline.com

 www.indiakanoon.com

4
 STATUTES REFERRED

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Lokpal And Lokayuktas Act, 2013
3. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
4. The Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner most humbly submits that this Hon’ble Court of Purvanchal has the

appropriate jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 as it

amounts to the violation of Fundamental rights as well as Constitutional and other

legal Rights of the “Probationer1 Cadre”

1
Rule 2(e) ‘Definiions’ of the Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954

6
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1) Can termination of the 500 PAS cadre officers by the Government of

Purvanchal be attributed as gross violation of the rights of the claimants
guaranteed under the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India?

2) Whether the principles of natural justice were completely given a go-by the
Government of Purvanchal in passing the impugned orders of termination?

3) Since no proper admissible evidence has been made available on which the
State could form a bonafide opinion, can the entire selection process be
declared as tainted?

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the case are very interesting and it raises certain questions on the
magnitude of corruption in the state. In 2012, the ruling government of the state
informed the Purvanchal State Public Service Commission (PSPSC) that there were
500 vacancies in the Purvanchal Administrative Service (PAS). Accordingly, the
PSPSC advertised for filing up the vacancies and 18, 000 applications were received
of which 9, 000 qualified in the written exams.

One of the applicants Mr. Prashant Raj was ranked 3rd in the preliminary and mains
exam. However, he scored one of the lowest scores in the personal interview and was
not recommended for appointment. Then, in February 2013, Mr. Prashant Raj came
out in the public that he was approached by a member of the PSPSC to pay Rs. 40
lakhs and find himself in the list of selected candidates. At the same time The
Purvanchal Times, a local newspaper highlighted the magnitude of red tapism in the
PSPSC. Mr. Prashant Raj also filed a complaint with the Lokayukta. The Lokayukta
investigated the matter and submitted its report to the State Government in April 2013.
The Lokayukta had prima facie arrived at a conclusion that there were clear
irregularities and corruption in the appointment of the PAS cadre officers and thus the
State Government issued a notification terminating the services of the concerned PAS
cadre officers with effect from 1st of August, 2014.

The state government also directed the PSPSC to fill up the 500 vacancies afresh and
relax the age of candidates by two years in case they were from the list of the
terminated cadres.

The terminated PAS cadre officers formed an association called Employment Rights
and Justice Forum (ERJF) and demanded reinstatement. The ERJF then approached
this Honourable Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

8
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1) VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Natural Justice is the most important legal principle of law on which lies the edifice of
our legal system. In law, under the concept of natural justice, right to be heard is one
of the most important concepts. Audi Alteram Partem is the foundation of this concept.
In any dispute, every party should be given a chance to present its case. The facts of
the case show that the newly elected Government of Purvanchal, abruptly took the
decision of terminating the 500 PAS cadre officers merely based on the prima facie
report of the Lokayukta that there were irregularities and corruption involved in the
selection process. The concerned PAS cadre officers were not allowed to exercise their
right to present their case and no show cause notice or other such notice was issued to
them.

2) THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW

The facts of the case clearly lays down that Mr. Prashant Raj complained to the
Lokayukta about corruption in the selection process of the PAS cadre officers and the
Lokayukta, based on the complaint conducted preliminary inquiry and gave its report
to the Government. It is important to note that the complaint was filed against the
members of the PSPSC and not against the selected candidates. As such, no complaint
was filed against the 500 PAS cadre officers.

However, instead of taking actions of any sort against the PSPSC members, the
candidates were terminated for no fault of theirs.

9
3) ACTION MERELY BASED ON ALLEGATION BY ONE CANDIDATE
AND PRIMA FACIE REPORT OF THE LOKAYUKTA

One of the astonishing facts in the case is that out of the 9, 000 candidates who
qualified in the written exams, Mr. Prashant Raj was the only one who complained
and came out in public alleging corruption by the members of the PSPSC. Moreover,
the facts of the case show that there is no evidence to ascertain the fact that Mr.
Prashant Raj was in fact contacted by a member of the PSPSC.

The facts also indicate clearly that the report submitted by the Lokayukta was a prima
facie one subject to further evidence or information.

10
 PLEADINGS/ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) ORDER OF TERMINATION HAVING CLEAR CIVIL CONSEQUENCES

ON THE PETITIONER IS BAD IN LAW ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF
THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, MORE SPECIFICALLY RIGHT
TO BE HEARD.

1.1 The Impugned Directions Violate The Principles Of Natural Justice:

Natural Justice is the most important legal principle of Law; it is the edifice of our
legal system. The origin of Natural justice has been traced even to God when he
commanded Adam and heard him before taking punitive act2.

The concept of Natural Justice originated from the concept of Natural Law
propounded by the Greeks. The theory of Natural Law holds that there is a certain
order in nature from which humans, by use of their reason, can derive standards for
human conduct. In law, under the concept of natural justice, right to be heard is one of
the most important concepts. Audi Alteram Partem is the foundation of this concept. In
any dispute, every party should be given a chance to present its case. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Bina Pani & Ors.3 , held
that

“It is an authority for the proposition when by reason of an action on the part of a
statutory authority, civil or evil consequences ensue, principles of natural justice are
required to be followed. In such an event, although no express provision is laid down
in this behalf compliance of principles of natural justice would be implicit. In case of
denial of principles of natural justice in a statute, the same may also be held ultra vires
of Article 14 of the Constitution”.

The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of

supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes
between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in
issue. These principles are well settled. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must

2
Ajit Kumar Nag v General Manager (P.J.), Indian oil Corporation Ltd, Haldia and Ors, 10CL
[(2005) 7 SCC 764]
3
AIR 1967 SC 1269; (1967) 2 SCR 625

11
be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he
has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to
make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable
opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a
party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against
him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice.4

Also, in the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India5, Bhagwati, J.
emphasised that audi alteram partem is a highly effective rule devised by the Courts
to ensure that a statutory authority arrives at a just decision and it is calculated to act
as a healthy check on the abuse or misuse of power. Hence its reach should not be
narrowed and its applicability circumscribed.

In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr v The Chief Election6, V Krishnaiyer J held
that

“Natural Justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens
legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has
many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes,
it applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the bone of a healthy
government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of judge-made
law.”

It is true that where appointments had been made by a competent authority or at least
some steps have been taken in that behalf, the principles of natural justice are required
to be complied with.7 The principles of natural justice have been violated while
terminating the services of the selected candidates without giving them an opportunity
of being heard.

4
AIR 2005 SC 2090
5
1978 AIR 597; 1978 SCR (2) 621
6
1978 AIR 851, 1978 SCR (3) 272
7
State of Manipur and Ors. v Y. Token Singh and Ors., (2007)5SCC65

12
 1.2 ‘Doctrine of Pleasure’ being imposed:

The doctrine of pleasure owes its origin to common law. The rule in England was that a
civil servant can hold his office during the pleasure of the crown and the service will be
terminated any time the crown wishes the same rule is applied in India. The member of
Defence services or civil services of the union or All-India services hold their office
during the pleasure of president. Similarly member of state services holds the office
during the pleasure of governor.8

Art 3109 of the Indian Constitution expressly mentions that the civil servants enjoy their
rank during the pleasure of the Governor of the State. But again Art 311(2)10 is a
protection offered to such civil servants where they must be given an opportunity to be
heard before taking any action against their continuance of service. It is significant that
the provisions contained in Art 311 are not subject to any other provisions of the
constitution within the field covered by them, they are absolute and paramount.11

The facts of the case show that the newly elected Government of Purvanchal, abruptly
took the decision of terminating the 500 PAS cadre officers who were undergoing their
period of probation merely based on the prima facie report of the Lokayukta that there
were irregularities and corruption involved in the selection process. The concerned PAS
cadre officers were not allowed to exercise their right to present their case and no show
cause notice or other such notice was issued to them. The Government, by merely

8
J.N.PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (689) (48 th ed 2011)
9
Article 310 states that:
(1) Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a defense
service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or holds any post connected
with defense or any civil post under the Union holds office during the pleasure of the President,
and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a state
holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State.
(2) Notwithstanding that a person holding a civil post under the Union or a State holds office
during the pleasure of the President or, as the case may be, of the Governor of the State any
contract under which a person, not being a member of a defense service or of an all-India service
or of a civil service of the Union or a State, is appointed under this Constitution to hold such a post
may, if the President or the Governor, as the case may be, deems it necessary in order to secure the
services of a person having special qualifications, provide for the payment to him of
compensation, if before the expiration of an agreed period that post is abolished or he is, for
reasons not connected with any misconduct on his part, required to vacate that post.
10
Article 311(2) states that:
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an
inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges Provided that where it is proposed after
such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of
the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any
opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed.
11
Motiram Deka v North Eastern Frontier Railway, AIR 1964 SC 600 (606)

13
issuing a one month terminating notice violated their natural justice and it was against
the concept of natural justice. Thus it violates the Constitutional Rights of the civil
servants provided under Art 311(2) to the civil servants.

In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr v The Chief Election12, it was held that,

“Justice must be felt to be just by the community if democratic legality is to animate the
rule of law. And if the invisible audience sees a man's case disposed of unheard, a
chorus of 'no-confidence' will be heard to say, ‘that man had no chance to defend his
stance'."

Whatever standard of natural justice is adopted, what is essential is that the person
concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case. While great
urgency may rightly limit such opportunity; perhaps severely there can never be a denial
of that opportunity if the principles of natural justice are applicable. The procedural pre-
condition of fair hearing, however minimal, even post-decisional, has relevance to
administrative and judicial gentlemanliness.

1.3 Violation of ‘procedure by law’ under Art 21:

Terminating the services of all the 500 cadre officers while on their probation period
of 2 years, the Government has exceedingly used its power and has violated the
fundamental rights of those officers by not following any ‘procedure’ as mentioned to
be followed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. In Maneka Gandhi v
Union of India case, the SC held that:

“The mere prescription of some kind of procedure is not enough to comply with the
mandate of Art 21. The procedure prescribed by law has to be just, fair and reasonable
not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary; otherwise, it should not be on procedure at all and
all the requirements of Art 21 would not be satisfied. What is fair or just? A procedure
to be fair or just must embody the principles of natural justice. Natural Justice is
intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice, the Court said: ‘Law’ should
be reasonable law, and not enacted piece of law”.13

12
ibid
13
J.N.PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (245) (48th ed 2011)

14
2) THE DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENT BASED ON THE REPORT OF
THE LOKAYUKTA’S REPORT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, SINCE AT NO
POINT OF TIME THE PETITIONERS WERE MADE PARTY TO SUCH
ENQUIRY.

2.1 Violation of Art 14 of Constitution of India:

The facts of the case clearly lays down the fact the Mr. Prashant Raj complained to the
Lokayukta about corruption in the selection process of the PAS cadre officers and the
Lokayukta, based on the complaint conducted preliminary inquiry and gave its report to
the Government. It is important to note that the complaint was filed against the
members of the PSPSC and not against the selected candidates. As such, no complaint
was filed against the 500 PAS cadre officers.

Section 32 of the The Lokpal And Lokayuktas Act, 2013 reads as:

“(1) Where the Lokpal, while making a preliminary inquiry into allegations of
corruption, is prima facie satisfied, on the basis of evidence available-

(i) that the continuance of the public servant referred to in clause (d) or clause (e)
or clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 14 in his post while conducting the
preliminary inquiry is likely to affect such preliminary inquiry adversely or
(ii) such public servant is likely to destroy or in any way tamper with the evidence
or influence witnesses, then, the Lokpal may recommend to the Central Government for
transfer or suspension of such public servant from the post held by him till such period
as may be specified in the order.
(2) The Central Government shall ordinarily accept the recommendation of the Lokpal
made under sub-section (1), except for the reasons to be recorded in writing in a case
where it is not feasible to do so for administrative reasons.”

Also Section 2 (c) sub clause (x) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 gives one of
the definition of Public Servant which reads as:

“any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or

Board, by whatever name called, or a member of any selection committee appointed by
such Commission or Board for the conduct of any examination or making any selection
on behalf of such Commission or Board;”

15
 As such, the members of the PSPSC, against whom the complaint was made to the
Lokayukta, are public servants and they were clearly in a position of influencing the
procedure of investigation. Thus, the Lokayuktas should have acted in the manner
prescribed in Section 32 and the Government should have followed the
recommendations.

However, instead of taking actions of any sort against the PSPSC members, the
candidates were terminated for no fault of theirs. This clearly shows violation of the
principles of “due procedure of law” established in the celebrated Maneka Gandhi case.

In other words, the petitioners were not given any opportunity to present their case
either before the Lokayukta or before the Government. This action of the government
clubs together two very unequal sections, one being the members of the PSPSC who are
alleged of being corrupt and the report of the Lokayukta also prima facie suggesting the
same. The other section being, the 500 PAS cadre officers, who were not even a part of
the investigation.

In dealing with a government servant, the state must conform to the constitutional
requirement of Art 1414 of the Constitution. An arbitrary exercise of power by the state
violates those constitutional guarantees for a fundamental implication in the guarantee
of equality and of protection against discrimination is that fair and just treatment will be
accorded to all, whether individually or jointly as a class. When a government servant
satisfies the court prima facie that an order terminating his services violates Art 14, the
competent authority must discharge the burden of showing that the power to terminate
the services was exercised honestly and in good faith, on valid considerations, fairly and
without discrimination.15 Thus it clearly signals discriminatory treatment being meted
out to the PAS cadre officers that violates Article 14of the Constitution of India.

14
Art 14 states:
Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of
religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
15
Nepal Singh v State of UP, AIR 1985 SC 84 (86)
16
2.2 Reconsideration of the Government’s Decision to Terminate:

When it comes to the question of the court’s interference into the matter of the
Government’s disciplinary action towards its employees, the Hon’ble High Court can
consider the views laid down in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial
Bank and Othrs v P.C.Kakkar16, as:

“It is settled that the court should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it
was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience
of the court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The court
would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him
and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of
judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the
decision.”

It is implicit in the facts of the case that the decision making authority here is the
Government of Purvanchal who were informed of the involvement of corruption
amongst the PSPSC members by the Lokayukta. The Lokayukta’s prima facie report
states the involvement of corruption in the appointment of the PAS cadre officer, and
based on only that the cadre officers were removed from service without giving them a
reason for such action. Even the investigation report of the Lokayukta was not disclosed
to petitioners. The whole procedure for their removal was not properly conducted as no
investigation was carried on regarding the involvement of the petitioners in any of the
allegations, and therefore the court can review the decision making process and term it
nullified.

It is only if the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made
a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment.
Where after following the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of
punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the
employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by
placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the state of
furnishing him with the report.17

16
AIR 2003 SC 1571
17
AIR 2005 SC 2090

17
Reliance has been placed on Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India18, where the court said:

“This Court observed that the solution by resorting to cancellation of all was worse than
the problem. Cure was worse than the disease. Equal treatment to unequals is nothing
but inequality. To put both the categories, tainted and the rest, on par is wholly
unjustified, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. This Court also observed that the Government instead of fulfilling the duty
and obligation cannot unjustly resort to cancellation of all the allotments en masse by
treating unequals as equals without even prima facie examining any case exposed by the
media.”

18
[2002]SUPP5SCR605

18
 3. ACTION MERELY BASED ON ALLEGATION BY ONE CANDIDATE,
AND WITHOUT REVELATION OF ANY FINDINGS BY THE LOKAYUKTA
AS THE PROOF OF CORRUPTION IS UNJUSTIFIED:

3.1 Violation of ‘Right to life’ under Art 21:

One of the astonishing facts in the case is that out of the 9, 000 candidates who qualified
in the written exams, Mr. Prashant Raj was the only one who complained and came out
in public alleging corruption by the members of the PSPSC. Moreover, the facts of the
case show that there is no evidence to ascertain the fact that Mr. Prashant Raj was in
fact contacted by a member of the PSPSC.

Moreover, there was a lot of deficiency in the investigation process of the Lokayukta. It
is true that on the complaint of Mr. Prashant Raj, the Lokayukta carried on investigation
on the members of the PSPSC. However, none of the 500 PAS cadre officers concerned
were investigated or called for questioning. If the allegation is that the appointments
were made in return for money paid by the candidates, then how could the Lokayukta
not question any one of such candidate and submit a primary report.

The facts also indicate clearly that the report submitted by the Lokayukta was a prima
facie one. The BLACK’s Law Dictionary defines prima facie as “At first sight; On first
appearance but subject to further evidence or information.”19 Thus, it clearly indicates
that the investigation conducted was not a detailed one. It was just a preliminary
investigation and what looked like evident in the preliminary stage had to be verified in
a detailed enquiry or investigation. Thus based on findings on such preliminary
investigation, they have violated their Right to Life enshrined in Article 21 by
terminating the 500 PAS cadre officers from service.

In the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India20 , Bhagwati J. in his

judgement said:

“The attempt of the Court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the Fundamental
Rights rather than to attenuate their meaning and content by a process of judicial
construction”.

19
BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (1310), (2ed 2014)
20
AIR 1978 SC 597
19
The cadres filing the petition to this Hon’ble Court were terminated from service by the
ruling government just to garner more support for their political party. Since,
accompanied by already existing allegation of corruption involved in the appointment of
the PAS cadre officers, the government headed by Dr. Chintaman Prakash did not
hesitate to facilitate to terminate the services of such cadres. Appointment of new cadres
afresh is just an action taken towards fulfilling their party’s manifesto of zero corruption
that can be termed as unconstitutional and arbitrary use of power.

20
 PRAYER

In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be

pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue a Rule calling upon the

Respondents to show cause as to why

a) a writ in the nature of Certiorari shall not be issued to set-aside/quash the impugned

order of termination issued by the Government of Purvanchal and/or

b) a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the Respondent

authorities to forthwith reinstate the claimants into service and to allow them to serve in

their respective posts.

Upon cause/causes that may be shown, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the

records be pleased to make the Rule absolute and / or to pass any other appropriate

order or direction as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances so as to give full and complete relief to the petitioner.

All of which is humbly submitted,

Counsels for the Claimants.

21