Dismissed

Phool Badan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC16 May 2018SPLAD/281/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Special Appeal regarding a claim for appointment as Cleaner. It held that the petitioner could not reagitate the issue exhausted at the Supreme Court and barred under Order II Rule 2. A companion order condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Allowed and condoned the delay in filing the Special Appeal as the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause.

Phool Badan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 281 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- Phool Badan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Janardhan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajeet Kumar Singh

¶5

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

¶6

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

¶7

This present Special appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 11 October 2017 by which a learned Judge of this Court has dismissed Writ-A No.47847 of 2017 (Phool Badan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) filed by the appellant.

¶8

We have heard Sri Janardhan Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1. and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claimed appointment on the post of Cleaner in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Ballia. The claim was rejected against which writ petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.30329 of 1993 which was dismissed by order dated 6 October 2006 on the ground that he did not possess the minimum qualification required for the post of Cleaner. Special Appeal No. 113 of 2007 was filed which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 12 February 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10992 of 2010 before the Supreme Court which was dismissed by order dated 3 December 2010 on the ground of delay as well as on merits. A writ petition was again filed by the petitioner for providing the two enquiry reports dated 23 February 1991 and 18 April 1991 and with a prayer to decide the representations.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that

¶11

¶12

the enquiry reports were not provided to him and, therefore, the dismissal of the earlier petition cannot be made a ground to reject this claim.

¶13

Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that the rejection of the claim for appointment on the post of Cleaner attained finality after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition and after eight years, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any grievance for providing the enquiry reports. Learned counsel also submitted that the second petition was also not maintainable under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the reason that grounds available to him at the time of filing of first writ petition cannot be taken in the second petition after dismissal of first writ petition.

¶14

We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

¶15

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Once the claim was rejected by the Supreme Court, the appellant cannot be permitted to reagitate the issue by requiring the respondents to furnish certain enquiry reports. This could have been raised in the earlier writ petition and not by filing a fresh writ petition. Further in light of Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file second writ petition for a cause of action which was available to him at the time of filing the first writ petition.

¶16

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we see no good ground to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Judge.

¶17

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.5.2018 Junaid

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Court No. - 39 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 281 of 2018

¶23

Appellant :- Phool Badan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Janardhan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajeet Kumar Singh

¶24

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

¶25

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2018

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Order Date :- 16.5.2018 Junaid

¶30

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶31

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Phool Badan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Badan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Sri Rahis Pal Rajkumar Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Amita Tripathi (Tiwari) Vs the Director of Education and 4 Others

naresh and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Aditya Shukla Vs the State Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Neetu Rani Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ordnance Equipment Factory Prarambhik Sahkari Bank Limited and Another Vs Om Shanker Mishra and 2 Others