Division Bench rejected the State's Special Appeal dismissing a 428-days-delayed intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's order allowing a Writ Petitioner. The court refused to condone delay given the coordinate Bench view and specific nature of the challenge.
Dismissed the special appeal and rejected the delay condonation application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 498 of 2022
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Respondent :- Monika Kapasia Counsel for Appellant :- Chandan Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Santoshprad Rai
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard learned Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent.
In Re: Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2022
By this application, the applicants seek condonation of 428 days' delay in filing the intra-court appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2021 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ-A No. 7218 of 2021 by which the writ petition of the writ petitioner (the respondent) was allowed following the judgment and order of a coordinate Bench dated 17.4.2019 in Writ A No. 23691 of 2018 (Vikram Singh and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).
The order of the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 7218 of 2021 was passed after hearing counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 (The State of U.P. and Director General of Education (Basic)) and the counsel representing the Board of Basic Education as well as District Basic Education Officer.
This appeal was presented for reporting on 15.10.2022 and is reported to be beyond time by 428 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application the only ground taken for condonation of delay is that there had been delay in seeking permission to file the appeal on account of interdepartmental correspondences.
We notice from the material available on record that following the judgment in Vikram Singh's case, several other matters were disposed of and one of the matters which was disposed of vide order dated 6.7.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 6757 of 2021 was subjected to an intra-court appeal, namely, Special Appeal No. 320 of 2022, which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 12.5.2022.
In such circumstances, it is clear from the record that the appellants were throughout aware that the Single Bench had followed an order of the coordinate Bench which had been
followed earlier also and a challenge to it before Division Bench had been negatived.
In such circumstances, we do not deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 428 days in filing this intra-court appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2021 which was passed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. More so, when the issue raised in this appeal is not with regard to the lack of qualification of the writ petitioner but with regard to the manner in which the qualification was obtained. Consequently, the delay condonation application is rejected.
In Re: Appeal
As the appeal is reported to be beyond time by 428 days, the same is dismissed as barred by limitation.
Order Date :- 15.11.2022 N.S.Rathour
Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.11.17 17:13:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay of 428 days in filing an intra-court appeal against the Single Judge's order is warranted.
Whether the order of the Single Judge curbing the writ petitioner's qualification requires interference by the Division Bench.
Whether the appeal is barred by limitation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Monika Kapasia
Manoj Misra
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
