Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Pratap Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic ... on 15 November, 2019
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 525 of 2019 Appellant :- Rakesh Pratap Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.B.S. Rathaur Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Order on Misc. Application No. 133170 of 2019 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay are deemed to be sufficient.
The application is allowed.
Accordingly, the delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.)
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 525 of 2019
Appellant :- Rakesh Pratap Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.B.S. Rathaur
Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as Sri J.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
This special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23846 (S/S) of 2019 - Rakesh Pratap Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
The writ Court by means of impugned order dated 03.09.2019 has dismissed the writ petition on merit as well as on the ground of delay and laches. The writ petition was filed with delay of about one year and prayer in that writ petition was made for quashing the orders dated 29.09.2018, 13.05.2017 and 05.05.2017. The writ Court dismissed the petition on merit as well as on the ground of delay and laches.
The writ Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner-appellant was appointed by the principal of the institution in the year 1995 and his appointment was never approved by the B.S.A. as per statute and subsequently his services were terminated vide order dated 13.05.32017. In the earlier writ petition No. 27196 (S/S) of 2017, the termination order dated 13.05.2017 was challenged and during course of arguments the petitioner only prayed that his representation which was pending before the B.S.A. may be decided and the said writ petition was disposed of on 23.11.2017, directing the authority concerned to decide the application of the petitioner expeditiously.
In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the authority concerned considered and rejected the representation by order dated 29.09.2018. The clause nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the order dated 29.09.2018, are quoted hereinbelow :
Þ03& izfroknhx.k dks funsZ'k fn;k tk; fd og ;kph ls fo|ky; esa lgk;d v/;kid ds in ij fu;fer dk;Z fy;k tk;] rFkk mls osru Hkqxrku fd;k tk;A ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr fu.kZ; ds vuqikyu esa [k.M f'k{kk vf/kdkjh ¼dk;kZy;½&lqYrkuiqj izdj.k dk vuq'kkhyu ,oa ijh{k.k foHkkxh; fu;eksa @ funsZ'kksa @ 'kklukns'kksa ds vkyksd esa fd;k x;kA ijh{k.k esa ik;k x;k fd %& 01& Hkkjrh; y?kq ek/;fed fo|ky;&xkslSflagiqj] nksLriqj&lqYrkuiqj v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr fo|ky; gSA 02& bl fo|ky; dks 'kklu }kjk o"kZ 1988 esa vuqnku lwfp ij vaxhd`r fd;k x;kA 03& jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl fo|ky; esa iz/kkuk/;kid&01] lgk;d v/;kid&04] fyfid&01] vuqpj&01 in tu'kfDr ds vUrxZr l`ftr gSA 04& bl fo|ky; dks o"kZ 1998 esa vuqnku lwfp ij fy;s tkus ds le; izcU/k lfefr }kjk izLrqr ,e0vkj0 esa Lohd`r in ds lkis{k iz/kkuk/;kid&01] lgk;d v/;kid&04] fyfid&01] vuqpj&rhu dk;Zjr FksA izcU/k lfefr }kjk izLrqr ,e0vkj0 esa ;kph dk uke mijksDr lwfp esa lfEefyr ugha FkkA 05& fo|ky; esa rhu d{k;sa dze'k% d{kk 6] 7 ,oa 8 ds lapkyu dh Lohd`fr iznku dh x;h gSA fdlh vfrfjDr in dh dksbZ Lohd`fr foHkkx }kjk iznku ugha fd;k x;k gSA 06& ;kph dh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ch0,0ch0,M0 gS] rFkk Vh0bZ0Vh0 mRrh.kZ ;ksX;rk ;kph ds ikl u gksus ds dkj.k ;kph l0v0 in gsrq vgZ ugha gSAß In view of the aforesaid, it is not in dispute that name of the petitioner-appellant was not sent by the Management of the Institution to the B.S.A. for approval in the year 1998 and the petitioner was not having requisite qualification for being appointed as Assistant Teacher nor the post was sanctioned by the sanctioning authority.
Considering the aforesaid we are of the view that the writ Court rightly dismissed the writ petition. No case is made out warranting interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the writ Court.
The special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.)