Allowed

Pankaj Kumar Rai and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2018SPLA/553/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside the single judge's order dismissing the writ petition during summer vacation. Relying on a precedent where similar relief was granted for an identical advertisement regarding age limits, the court entertained the present petition, allowed the special appeal, permitted appellants to participate in the selection process provisionally, and directed the respondents to file counter

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order dated 04.06.2018 are set aside; writ petition entertained on merits; appellants provisionally permitted to participate in selection; respondents granted time to file counter aff

Pankaj Kumar Rai and 3 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 553 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Pankaj Kumar Rai And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Saran,Surya Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

The present special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.06.2018 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the matter is adjourned on the ground that petition evidences no urgency warranting entertainment in summer vacation.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in identical circumstances, challenge made to the cut off date fixed for maximum age limit in the advertisement dated 15.03.2018, has been entertained by this court and interim relief has been granted to the petitioners therein.

¶7

An interim order dated 11.04.2018 passed in Writ - A No. 9614 of 2018, Divya Prakash Mishra & 32 Ors v. State of U.P. & 3 Ors has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the petitioners therein, who were applicants under the earlier advertisement issued in December 2016 for recruitment to the post in question and who possess the requisite eligibility criteria under the said advertisement, have been permitted to participate in the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.03.2018.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is not disputed by Sri Avnish Tripathi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Commission.

¶9

In view thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants are also entitled for similar relief as has been granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition.

¶10

For the aforesaid reason, the judgment and order dated 04.06.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 13486 of 2018, Pankaj Kumar Rai & 3 Ors v. State of U.P. & 3 Ors is hereby set aside. The order dated 04.06.2018 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is entertained on merits.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3

¶12

and Sri Avnish Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 pray for and are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

¶13

List the writ petition before the appropriate bench on 18.07.2018.

¶14

The petitioners/ appellants are provisionally permitted to participate in the selection process for the post in question pursuant to advertisement dated 15.03.2018. Their selections/ appointments, however, shall be subject matter of final decision in the writ petition.

¶15

With the above observations/ directions, the special appeal is allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 12.6.2018 IrfanUddin

Pankaj Kumar Rai and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Rai and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kanti Swaroop Jindal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Durvesh Chaudhary Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Delhi and 4 Others

Salma Shekh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Shivani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and 3 Others