Dismissed

Donesh Rajpoot v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2018SPLAD/410/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal defective No.410 of 2018. The court first condoned the 24-day delay in filing. Subsequently, dismissing the appeal on merits, the court held no error existed in the lower court's decision denying selection due to non-receipt of the application form.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal is dismissed; the delay is condoned but the appeal on merits is rejected.

Donesh Rajpoot Vs State of Up and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 410 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Donesh Rajpoot Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Arpan Srivastava,Anil Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

Order on Delay Condonation Application

¶6

This appeal is barred by limitation from 24 days.

¶7

Having considered the facts stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant had justifiable reason to state that for a bonafide reason, he was prevented from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶8

Order on Memo of Appeal

¶9

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 02.04.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 59404 of 2014.

¶10

Learned Single Bench while dismissing the petition for writ arrived at the conclusion that the application form of the petitioner was not received in the office of the respondent authorities within the prescribed time, therefore, no occasion was there to permit him to face the process of selection. The Bench also held that the persons said to be similarly situated are not comparable with case of the present appellant-petitioner as the application send to be submitted by the appellant-petitioner was never received.

¶11

In appeal, the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding arrived by learned Single Bench is based on erroneous appreciation of the facts. It is asserted

¶12

that as per the document dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure No. 4), the application form of Sri Arvind Kumar was also not received by the respondents but his case was considered and appointment was given to him.

¶13

Suffice to mention that the office order dated 26.10.2012 mentions that the application form submitted by Sri Arvind Kumar was not received and, as such, consideration thereof is not possible. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the application form of Sri Arvind Kumar was also not received by the respondent office and his candidature was erroneously considered then too no relief, as prayed for, can be granted as no negative parity can be claimed. Any direction, as prayed for, if is given then that would amount to perpetuate an illegality.

¶14

In view of it, we do not find any just reason to interfere in the matter.

¶15

The appeal is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.7.2018 Shubham

¶17

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

Donesh Rajpoot v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Donesh Rajpoot v. State of Up and 2 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

The Committee of Management,Patel Smarak Inter College Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Uma Kant Shukla Vs District Inspector of Schools and 2 Ors.

Surya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

gulab devi Vs u.p. power corporation Ltd. 4 others

Upendra Singh and 55 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Namo Narayana Tiwari Vs State of Up and 4 Others