Dismissed

Priyanka Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022SPLAD/342/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal examined a delay condonation application seeking to file an appeal against the High Court Single Judge's order dismissing a petition regarding Assistant Teacher Recruitment marks allocation. The court found the explanation for the 212-day delay unsatisfactory.

What did the court decide?

The delay condonation application was rejected, resulting in the dismissal of the special appeal as barred by limitation.

Priyanka Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 342 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Priyanka Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

In Re:- Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2022

¶6

We have heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi for the appellant; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and Ms. Archana Singh for the respondent no.4.

¶7

By this delay condonation application, the applicant seeks condonation of 212 days delay in filing the intra court appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.12.2021 passed in Writ-A No.13307 of 2021.

¶8

At the out set, it be noticed that the prayer of the petitioner (the appellant herein) in Writ-A No.13307 of 2021 was to allocate marks to the petitioner for question No.145 with respect to Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018. The writ petition of the appellant was dismissed after hearing the counsel for the parties and by observing that there had been a challenge to the key answers in a bunch of writ petitions filed earlier, which was not accepted by the Court vide order dated 07.05.2021 passed in lead Writ-A No.4052 of 2020 against which Special Appeal Defective No.343 of 2021 was partly allowed and thereafter, selection process has been completed therefore, if such a belated challenge is entertained, then recruitment/selection will process never come to an end.

¶9

In that context, we proceed to examine the explanation offered by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, there is no worthwhile explanation as to why the petitioner (the appellant herein) could not earlier file the appeal even though she was fully aware of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The only explanation offered is that the appellant could not come to Prayagraj to discuss the niceties of the case with her lawyer and only when the matter was discussed, the appellant borrowed money to file the appeal.

¶11

We do not find the explanation satisfactory, particularly, in the

¶12

contextual facts of the case noticed above. We, therefore, decline the prayer of the appellant to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay condonation application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶13

As the appeal is beyond time by 212 days, the same is dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.11.2022 AKShukla/-

¶15

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA Date: 2022.11.11 17:22:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priyanka Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Ranjan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gramya Parishad Chakshaym Kiraon and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary, (Institutional Finance and Registration) and 12 Others

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another Vs Ridhi Yadav and Another

Pramod Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Faraz Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Another Vs Laxman Prasad Kushwaha and Another