Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 195 of 1999 Petitioner :- State Of U.P.Through The Secy. Home Dept. Respondent :- Jagdish Prasad Tewari
Petitioner Counsel :- S.K.Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon’ble Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J
Order on application for condonation of delay
List has been revised.
Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent.
Mr. Praful Yadav, brief holder, appears on behalf of the appellant. According
to Stamp Reporter , the appeal is barred by limitation of 14 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 satisfied 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.
Order on Special Appeal.
Respondent-appellant aggrieved by the order dated Ist May, 1998, passed in
Writ Petition No. 5971 of 1983 has preferred this appeal under Rule 5
Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, 1952.
Writ Petitioner- respondent was selected for appointment as a constable in the
Provincial Armed Constabulary. He filed writ application inter-alia praying
for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents- appellant herein to allow him to under go training as constable.
Aforesaid prayer was resisted on the ground that from verification report of
the Superintendent of Police it transpired that he was charge sheeted in a case
and therefore not enlisted as constable. It was further pleaded that as he was
not enlisted as constable, there was no occasion to send him for training. It
seems that by interim order, a direction was given to allow the writ petitioner
to under go training.
When the matter was taken up, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
application with the direction that in case writ petitioner was not allowed to
under go training in pursuance of the interim order, the appellant shall
consider his case afresh , as he was acquitted of the criminal charges.
Mr. Praful Yadav, brief holder, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits
that writ petitioner -respondent was never enlisted as a constable , there is no
occasion to consider his case afresh on the ground of acquittal. He points out
the question of sending a person for training will arise only when he is
enlisted for recruitment.
Although the name of Sri S.K.Srivastava has been shown in the cause list as
counsel for respondent but when the matter is taken up, nobody appears on
his behalf.
We find substance in the submission of Mr. Yadav. Although specific plea
was raised by the appellant herein that writ petitioner was never enlisted, but
the learned Single Judge without adjudicating as to whether he was actually
enlisted or not had given the direction for considering the case of the writ
petitioner for sending him to training. We are of the opinion that writ
petitioner having not been enlisted for recruitment, there was no occasion to
give direction for considering his case to under go training.
We are of the view that learned Single Judge while passing the impugned
order did not go into this important aspect of the matter, which has rendered
his order illegal.
In the result , the appeal is allowed. Impugned order of the learned Single
Judge is set aside but without any order as to costs.
(C.K.Prasad, C.J.)
(Y.K.Sangal.J)
Date of Order: 21.1.2010
R.P./