Dismissed¶29

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others v. Praveen Singh and Another

Review Petition – Condonation of delay

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2025CMRAD/42/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay in review petition; error apparent on face of record; sanctioned post of Principal; paragraphs 5 and 7 of counter affidavit; Government Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2012; order no. MA0/4308-81/2013-14 dated 01.08.2013; additional evidence in review proceedings; mandamus for payment of salary from 10.11.1997; Dhruv Narayan Singh v. State of U.P.; State of U.P. Secondary Education Department; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.

What did the court decide?

None; the Review Petition was dismissed as devoid of merits (the delay in filing had earlier been condoned). ¶29

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others vs Praveen Singh and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Review Petition was dismissed as devoid of merits (the delay in filing had earlier been condoned).

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 177 days in filing the Review Petition against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2024 passed in WRIT - A No. - 2706 of 2024 should be condoned. +2 more

¶10

Court's answer

Despite finding the reasons in the affidavit supporting the delay-condonation application flimsy and noting no concerted effort by the department to seek review within the prescribed time, the Court condoned the delay in filing the review petition in view of the contention that the judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, referred to in paragraph-8 of the impugned judgment, clearly indicated not only the date of the order but also the number of the order itself whereby manpower for the institution was sanctioned.

¶22

Key takeaways

The order sanctioning manpower was passed in pursuance of the Government's Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2012, and paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit indicated a vacant sanctioned post of Principal in the institution.ratio¶22
In the succeeding paragraphs of the counter affidavit, the denial of creation of the post of Principal was on the basis that the Manager of the institution did not take any action to create the post.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition — Condonation of delay — Delay of 177 days in filing review of judgment and order dated 12.08.2024 in WRIT - A No. - 2706 of 2024 (which had directed payment of salary to the writ petitioner on the post of Principal with effect from 10.11.1997) condoned despite flimsy explanation and absence of concerted effort by the department, in view of the plea of error apparent on the face of the record — Merits — Paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, relied on in paragraph-8 of the judgment, disclosed both the date and the number of the order sanctioning manpower, passed pursuant to the Government's Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2012, and indicated a vacant sanctioned post of Principal; the later denial of creation of the post rested on the Manager's inaction, and no provision of law assigning the Manager any role in creation of the post was pointed out — The contradiction stood adverted to and dealt with in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment — Order no. MA0/4308-81/2013-14 dated 01.08.2013 creating the post, admittedly not on the record of the writ petition, could not be appreciated as additional evidence in review — No error apparent on the face of the record — Review Petition dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26766

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 42 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 3 Others Opposite Party :- Praveen Singh And Another Counsel for Applicant :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Order on Application for condonation of delay

¶7

Heard learned counsel for review petitioners and Mr. Sudhir Pande, learned counsel for opposite party no.1.

¶8

As per office report dated 29.04.2025, notice upon opposite party no.2 is deemed sufficient although no-one has put in appearance on their behalf.

¶9

Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in challenging judgment and order dated 12.08.2024 passed in WRIT - A No. - 2706 of 2024.

¶10

Office has reported delay of 177 days in filing Review Petition as on 07.03.2025.

¶11

Upon perusal of reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is evident that there is no explanation with regard to delay from 12.08.2024 till 03.09.2024. Opinion of Chief Standing Counsel also appears to have been given on 06.11.2024. Thereafter various inter departmental correspondence were held by opposite parties whereafter the application has been filed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has opposed the delay condonation application with submission that there is no cogent explanation in the affidavit filed in support of the application which would require delay in filing Review Petition be condoned.

¶13

Reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay are flimsy at their best. There has been no concerted effort by department for seeking review within the prescribed time.

¶14

Nonetheless, since learned counsel for review petitioners has indicated the aspect of error being apparent on the face of record of judgment, the delay in filing review petition is condoned.

¶15

Order in memo of Review Application

¶16

Heard learned counsel for review petitioners and Mr. Sudhir Pande, learned counsel for opposite party no.1.

¶17

As per office report dated 29.04.2025, notice upon opposite party no.2 is deemed sufficient although no-one has put in appearance on their behalf.

¶18

Review Petition has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 12.08.2024.

¶19

Learned counsel for review petitioners submits that by means of aforesaid judgment and order, direction has been issued in nature of Mandamus to ensure payment of salary to petitioner(opposite party no.1 herein) on the post of Principal with effect from 10.11.1997. It is submitted that the entire basis of allowing the writ petition has been indicated in paragraph 8 of the judgment which in turn places reliance on paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit to record an admission on part of the State authorities that the post of Principal had been sanctioned. It is submitted that such a fact recorded in paragraph-8 of the judgment is erroneous since no such post of Principal was sanctioned in the School concerned and has also been noticed in the same paragraph-8 of the judgment itself. The said contradiction has thereafter been adjudicated upon in paragraph 9 of the judgment. It is therefore submitted that once this court had clearly indicated submissions made in counter affidavit that the post of Principal had not been created or sanctioned, there was no occasion to allow the writ petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for review-petitioners with submission that paragraph 5 of counter affidavit has clearly indicated order dated 01.08.2013 whereby post of Principal was created in School concerned. He has also adverted to aforesaid paragraph of counter affidavit filed in the writ petition to submit that the order number whereby post was created was also indicated therein and it was also stated in counter affidavit that the post was being created in pursuance of directions issued by this Court dated 22.05.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.26307 of 2010, Dhruv Narayan Singh versus State of U.P. & Ors. It is therefore submitted that since a specific statement had been clearly made in counter affidavit indicating not only the date but the number of the order as well whereby the post of Principal was sanctioned in the School concerned, there is no error in the judgment and order passed by this Court.

¶21

Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the entire basis of Review Petition is the averments made in paragraphs 5 and 7 of counter affidavit filed in the writ petition.

¶22

This Court has examined the aforesaid paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition. Paragraph-5 of counter affidavit which has clearly been referred to in paragraph-8 of impugned judgment has clearly indicated not only the date of order but also the number of the order itself whereby manpower for the institution has been sanctioned. The paragraph clearly indicates that the said order has been passed in pursuance of Government's Office Memorandum dated 15.06.2012 and also indicates a vacant sanctioned post of Principal in the institution. The contradiction that

¶23

the post of Principal has not been created in the institution has subsequently been indicated in the last part of the same paragraph as well as in succeeding paragraphs. However, in the succeeding paragraphs, the denial of creation of post is on the basis that the Manager of the institution did not take any action to create the post of Principal.

¶24

Learned counsel for review petitioners has not been able to indicate any provision of law whereby Manager of the Institution has any role in creation of the post of Principal in the institution.

¶25

It is also evident from a perusal of impugned judgment and order that the said contradiction has not only been adverted to in paragraphs 8 and 9 of impugned judgment but has also been dealt with.

¶26

It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that the aforesaid order number MA0/4308-81/2013-14 dated 01.08.2013 whereby the post of Principal in the institution is said to have been created, has been brought on record as Annexure no.1 to the Review Petition.

¶27

Considering the fact that the contradiction in counter affidavit filed by review-petitioners in the writ petition has already been dealt with in the impugned judgment and order and admittedly the order dated 01.08.2013 not being on record of the writ petition, this Court does not find any occasion to appreciate the same as additional evidence in review petition.

¶28

Considering aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record which would require any indulgence.

¶29

The Review Petition therefore being devoid of merits is dismissed.

¶30

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 kvg/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated 12.08.2024 passed in WRIT - A No. - 2706 of 2024, allowing the writ petition and issuing a direction in the nature of mandamus for payment of salary to the writ petitioner (opposite party no.1 herein) on the post of Principal with effect from 10.11.1997.¶9
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (this Court) · 12.08.2024
Prior proceeding
By the impugned judgment and order dated 12.08.2024 in WRIT - A No. - 2706 of 2024, a direction in the nature of mandamus was issued to ensure payment of salary to the writ petitioner (opposite party no.1 herein) on the post of Principal with effect from 10.11.1997.¶19
Prior proceeding
Office reported a delay of 177 days in filing the Review Petition as on 07.03.2025.¶10
Prior proceeding
The affidavit in support of the delay-condonation application gave no explanation for the delay from 12.08.2024 till 03.09.2024; the opinion of the Chief Standing Counsel was given on 06.11.2024, followed by inter-departmental correspondence.¶11
Prior proceeding
The Court found the reasons in the delay-condonation affidavit flimsy and noted no concerted effort by the department to seek review within the prescribed time, but nonetheless condoned the delay in view of the plea of error apparent on the face of the record.¶14
Prior proceeding
The entire basis of the Review Petition is the averments made in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition.¶21
Prior proceeding
As recorded in the counter affidavit (recounted by counsel for opposite party no.1), the post of Principal was created in pursuance of directions issued by this Court dated 22.05.2012 in Writ Petition No.26307 of 2010, Dhruv Narayan Singh versus State of U.P. & Ors.¶20
Prior proceeding
It was admitted by counsel that order no. MA0/4308-81/2013-14 dated 01.08.2013, whereby the post of Principal is said to have been created, was brought on record as Annexure no.1 to the Review Petition; it was admittedly not on the record of the writ petition.¶26

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others v. Praveen Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others v. Praveen Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anuj Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Saddam @ Mohd. Saddam Qureshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shivkant Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Ravindra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dr. Aftab Iqbal Beg vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Lko. and 4 Others