Allahabad High Court High Court

Mewa Lal ( S/S 470/2000 ) vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue & 2 … on 21 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Mewa Lal ( S/S 470/2000 ) vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue & 2 … on 21 January, 2010
        C.M. Application No. 49700 of 2008
                        IN
      Special Appeal (D) No. 351 of 2008 (S/B)
                           ****

Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal,J

This application has been filed for condoning

the delay in filing the appeal.

According to Stamp Reporter, the appeal is

barred by limitation by 1 year 7 months and 13 days.

Various reasons, which prevented the appellant

from filing the appeal within time, have been

enumerated in the affidavit filed in support of the

application.

We are of the opinion that the same constitute

sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the

appeal.

Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is

condoned.

Application stands allowed.

(C.K. Prasad,CJ)

(Y.K. Sangal,J)
Date: 21.01.2010.

RK/
Special Appeal (D) No. 351 of 2008 (S/B)
Mewa Lal vs. State of U.P. and others

****

Hon’ble C.K. Prasad,CJ
Hon’ble Y.K. Sangal,J

List has been revised.

Mr. Satish Kumar Singh appears on behalf of the appellant.

Nobody appears on behalf of respondent no. 3 although the name

of Mr. U.K. Srivastava has been shown in the cause list.

Respondent no. 3-appellant, aggrieved by order dated

22.9.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.

470 of 2000 (S/S) and order dated 23.5.2007 passed in Review

Petition No. 71 of 2007, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5

Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.

Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that

respondent no. 3-appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’)

was a candidate for promotion to a class III post of Junior

Assistant. Writ petitioner-respondent no. 3 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘respondent no. 3’) was also a candidate for appointment to the

said post as a direct recruit. He had offered his candidature for

appointment in the light of the advertisement published in the

Newspapers on 10.8.1998. Respondent no. 3 had been awarded

22 marks out of total 50 marks and did not achieve the required

typing speed for appointment. The appellant, who was to be

considered from amongst the promotional quota to the post of

Junior Assistant, secured only 5 marks and did not achieve the

required typing speed. However, he was promoted on ad-hoc
basis by order dated 4.11.1999.

Respondent no. 3 challenged the said order inter alia

contending that the appellant having no required typing speed,

i.e. 25 words per minute, he ought not to have been promoted and

respondent no. 3, who had performed better than him ought to

have been appointed. The aforesaid submission found favour

with the learned Single Judge and he quashed the order of

promotion dated 4.11.1999 and while doing so, the learned

Single Judge observed as follows:

“The minimum typing speed for the post was 25
words per minute while Sri Mewa Lal could type only 4
words per minute. In view of this, Sri Mewa Lal ought
not have been appointed giving preferential treatment,
excluding other suitable candidates.”

Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, appearing on behalf of the

appellant submits that respondent no. 3 was a candidate for direct

recruitment whereas appellant was a candidate from the

promotional quota and therefore, the comparison between two

was absolutely misplaced. He submits that the appellant was

considered from the promotional quota and finding his

performance in the typing test not upto mark promoted on ad-hoc

basis and that ought not to have been interfered by the learned

Single Judge at the instance of respondent no. 3, who was a

candidate for direct recruitment.

We find substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. In our

opinion, respondent no. 3 being a candidate for direct recruitment

and the appellant from promotional quota, their comparison for
the purpose of selection is absolutely misplaced. The appellant

was considered for promotion and taking into account his

performance in the typing test, he was promoted on ad-hoc basis

subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.

We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge ought

not have interfered at the instance of respondent no. 3.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order of the

learned Single Judge is set aside but without any order as to cost.

                              (Y.K. Sangal,J)       (C.K. Prasad,CJ)
Date: 21.01.2010.
RK/