Partly allowed

Smt. Rekha Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2018SPLAD/560/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal regarding a dismissed writ petition concerning promotion refusal was decided on merits despite a limitation bar. The bench overturned the lower court's endorsement, noting an amended petition alleged the promotion refusal was based on a forged document, and remitted the case for adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; Writ Petition remanded to learned Single Bench for adjudication on merits.

Smt. Rekha Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 560 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Rekha Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manjari Singh,Kunal Ravi Singh,Vijay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 7 days. An application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the same. Ignoring the delay in filing the appeal, we have looked into the merits of the case.

¶6

The petition for writ bearing Writ-A No.43629 of 1999 has been dismissed on basis an endorsement made in a document which was available at page 30 of the amended petition for writ. As per learned Single Bench in the entire petition for writ the appellant-petitioner nowhere controverted or refuted the endorsement so made about refusal of promotion by him and as such he is not entitled for any relief prayed for.

¶7

On going through the record, it reveals that after receiving counter affidavit to the petition for writ the appellant-petitioner preferred an application to have amendment in the petition and that was allowed on 18.02.2013. As a consequence of order aforesaid amended petition was filed. In para-8 whereof it was specifically mentioned that " the respondents have annexed forged letter dated 11.04.1989 in which wrong facts and manipulation is apparent on record. The appellant-petitioner has never refused or forgo her promotion. The alleged noting in the said order dated 11.04.1989 is false."

¶8

In view of the submissions noticed above, we are of the

¶9

considered opinion that the assertion of learned Single Bench in para-4 of the order dated 20.07.2018 in the terms that in entire writ petition it is not stated anywhere that the appellantpetitioner did not refuse for promotion and aforesaid endorsement is incorrect is not in consonance to the record available. It would also be appropriate that while invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a High Court exercises its plenary powers to have a reasonable procedure. Such procedure must be a fair and reasonable with clear understanding that if the Court is to exercise its extraordinary discretion then minor technicalities are to be ignored to ensure substantial justice. The substantial justice can't be sacrificed to observe minor curable technical errors. Looking to whatever stated above, the judgement impugned deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Writ petition is remanded to learned Single Bench for its adjudication on merits.

¶10

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 29.8.2018

¶12

Asha

¶13

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

Smt. Rekha Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rekha Jaiswal v. State of U.P. 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

C/M Baba Raghav Das Krishak Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs Superintending Engineer, 14TH Circle Irrigation Works, Azamgarh and 5 Ors.

Nagar Panchayat and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Ram Pravesh Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Prabhu Nath Rai Vs Dist. Inspector of Schools and 3 Ors.