JUDGMENT :

Vikas Budhwar, J.

1. Heard Sri Chandra Jeet Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nand Lal Mourya, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondents.

FACTS

2. Factual matrix of the case as worded in the writ petition are that the petitioner Smt. Poonam Rani claims herself to be the the wife of Sri Yogesh Kumar, who was posted as Junior Engineer in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Victoria Park, Meerut. Records reveal that certain allegations were levelled against his performance while discharging official duty which occasioned laying of a trap pursuant whereto, he was found indulged in corruption coupled with misconduct pursuant whereto a Criminal Case No.11 of 2018 was registered on 19.1.2018 purported to be under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (In short Act of 1988) Police Station Mainather, District Moradabad and thereafter a first information report was also lodged and proceedings for prosecution was also drawn and he was placed under suspension on 22.1.2018. Sanction was also proceeded to be obtained under Section 17 of the Act of 1988 which was accorded on 15.2.2018. Simultaneously, a charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority on 6.8.2019 and thereafter one Sri Pramod Gogneya was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and regular departmental enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, who in turn tendered its enquiry report on 6.1.2021 holding the husband of the petitioner guilty of the two charges which was sought to be levelled upon it. Ultimately, on 7.7.2021 an order was passed whereby the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from services.

3. Sri Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at bar that the order dated 7.7.2021 dismissing the husband of the petitioner has been further carried in a departmental appeal before the appellate authority which is stated to be pending.

4. The petitioner herein claiming herself to be the wife of Yogesh Kumar, who had been dismissed by virtue of order dated 7.2.2021 has approached this Court while filing the present petition seeking following reliefs:-

(I) Interpret the JUSTICE, Social, Economic and Political provided in the preamble of the Constitution of India, Article 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India, in the contest of the involved substantial question of law as to interpretation of this Constitution framed as follows:

(a) Does word "Dismissal" used under Article 311 of the Constitution of India includes impression or sprit or means of "Dismissal from the Service which disqualify from future employment" or penalty provided under Rule 3-B-(iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1999 stands repugnant/ inconsistent to the impression or sprit or means to the word "Dismissal" used under Article 311 of the Constitution of India?

(b) Does in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, its permissible or within jurisdiction to amend/modify/alter/identify or clarify the word "Dismissal" used under Article 311 of the Constitution of India as "Dismissal from the service which disqualify from future employment" and "Dismissal from service which does not disqualify from employment" as designed amended/modified/altered/ identified and clarified vide Rule 3-B-(iii) and (i