Special appeal filed with 1560 days' delay challenging dismissal of a writ petition over a cancelled 2011 Peon/Chowkidar recruitment. Citing precedent that delay defeats equity, the Division Bench found no sufficient cause, rejected the delay condonation application, and dismissed the appeal.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123784-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 363 of 2024
Appellant :- Raj Kumar Sonkar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
"....Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sonkar, the petitioner in person and Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
In compliance with the order dated 06.12.2019, Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has produced written instructions dated 3rd December, 2019 wherein it is indicated that the selection exercise/interview, where the petitioner appeared for the post of Peon/Chowkidar held on 07.02.2011, has been canceled on 11th June, 2019 in view of a change in the recruitment policy. Upon being asked by the Court that what took the respondents so long from the year 2011 to the year 2019 to take the recruitment process commenced in the year 2011 to its logical conclusion, it is pointed out that a PIL No. 19831 of 2011 Saroj Kumar vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and others was filed wherein this Court passed an interim order restraining the process of recruitment vide order dated 06.04.2011. The said petition was dismissed on 23.03.2017. It is this period of operation of the stay order between 06.04.2011 and 23.03.2017 that accounts for the delay in the selections held on 17.02.2011 being not finalized earlier. Now, of course the policy has been changed and vide order dated 11.06.2019, the entire recruitment process has been cancelled. As such, no case for grant of relief is made out.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs."
dated 15-03-2024. For ready reference, the order dated 15-03-2024 is extracted as under:-
"...1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shankar, learned Counsel for the applicant-petitioner in support of the application for review of my order dated 07.12.2019 passed in Writ - A No. 19398 of 2019,.
2. Learned Counsel has argued that the applicant-petitioner cannot be blamed for the stay order, that was passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 19831 of 2011, tilted as 'Saroj Kumar v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and others', which, later on, came to be dismissed as not maintainable.
3. The fact that the interim order was passed, which led to delay in finalization of the recruitment process and during this period, a change in the recruitment policy came about would not, by itself, entitle the petitioner to relief. These are two distinct and different matters. One is the filing of the P.I.L., wherein, an interim order was passed, and later on, the P.I.L. was dismissed; and the other is change in recruitment policy on account of lapse of time. These issues have already been considered, and in the garb of hearing this review application, the Court cannot reopen the entire controversy as if it were hearing the matter for the first time and enter a different opinion. There is no such error apparent or other sufficient cause pointed out on behalf of the applicant, which may call for a review of our order dated 17.12.2019.
4. This review application, accordingly, stands rejected."
5. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Ajay Shankar, Advocate, who has appeared in the matter instructed by the High Court Legal Services Authority.
"1. That the deponent above named is the sole petitioner/applicant/appellant in the aforesaid special appeal and doing pairvi on behalf of him, as such, he is fully acquainted with the facts of the case deposed to below.
2. That the petitioner being very poor who living hand to mouth and also less educated person who does not know about the technicality of law, and also very poor who could not manage to file same within time.
2. That since the applicant/appellant, who is poor, unemployed and in search of job wondering here and there and his family condition is very pathetic and members are suffering from old age ailments and no financial support thereof, as such the delay in filing the special appeal is liable to be condone in the interest of justice.
3. That the applicant/appellant is very poor, who also did not know the technicality of law, and the delay caused in filing the special appeal is not intentionally and deliberately, it happened on account of reasoned above, therefore, applicant/appellant could not file the same in time, which is liable to be condone, in the interest of justice.
4.That in view of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the preceding paragraphs of the affidavit, it just and expedient in the interest of justice and the delay caused in filing the special appeal is not intentionally and deliberately in happen on account of due to reasoned given above, which is liable to be condone and application deemed to be filed in time, in the interest of justice."
Order Date :- 1.8.2024
pks
Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Should the inordinate delay of 1560 days in filing the special appeal be condoned?
Was the appellant entitled to relief over the cancelled 2011 recruitment for the post of Peon/Chowkidar?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s National Fertilizers LtdRelied on¶7
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s National Fertilizers Ltd, ITA 401/2023 & CM No. 37496/2023, dated 23.08.2023
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. BherulalRelied on¶8
(2020)10 SCC 654 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar Sonkar
State of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
