Allowed

Bhure Lal v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018SPLAD/221/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the single judge's order dismissing a writ petition as infructuous due to the appellant's counsel's absence and restored the petition. It also condoned delay in filing the Special Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the learned Judge dated 31 January 2018 was set aside and the writ petition was restored to its original number. The Special Appeal is allowed and delay condoned.

Bhure Lal Vs U.P. Secondary Education Service… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 221 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Bhure Lal Respondent :- U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission And 4 Others

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Shantanu Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Special Appeal within the period of limitation.

¶9

The application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned.

¶10

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 Junaid

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Court No. - 39

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 221 of 2018

¶15

Appellant :- Bhure Lal Respondent :- U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shantanu Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav

¶16

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶17

This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31 January 2018 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ-A No.31698 of 1997 that had been filed for not only quashing the order dated 24 August 1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools but also for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitionerappellant as Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade and to pay regular salary, has been dismissed.

¶18

The judgment is reproduced below:-

¶19

"1. Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondents. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

¶20

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

¶21

(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution of the committee of management, Shri Ganesh Inter College, Kasganj, Etah dated 24.8.97 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) as also the termination notice dated 1.9.97 issued by the Manager, Shri Ganesh Inter College, Kasganj, Etah (Annexure 3 to the writ petition).

¶22

(ii) A writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Lecturer in English in Shri Ganesh Inter College, Kasganj Etah and to pay the petitioner his full salary on the said post regularly every month.

¶23

I myself have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.

¶24

Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent.

¶25

Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. "

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that the counsel for the petitioner-appellant could not appear before the learned Judge. It is also submitted that cause of action still survives but as the matter has been decided on merits, a recall application cannot be filed.

¶27

In the absence of counsel for the petitioner-appellant, the learned Judge has, after reading the pleadings, found that the petitioner-appellant has not been able to make out a case for the Court to interfere. The learned Judge has also observed that the matter may have been rendered infructuous as counsel for the petitioner-appellant has not appeared. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has stated that he could not appear before the Court.

¶28

In the facts and circumstances of the case and when the matter has not been rendered infructuous, we consider it appropriate to set aside the judgment and order dated 31 January 2018 and restore the writ petition to its original number.

¶29

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶30

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 Junaid

¶31

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶32

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Bhure Lal v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhure Lal v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Majumdar Vs Cantonment Board Office and 8 Others

Pushpendra Kumar AND13 Others Vs Staff Selection Commission and 2 Others

M/S S.K. Contracts Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

chandra wati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. Vs Shubham Saxena and Another

Mohammad Idris Vs State of U.P. and Another