Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P.Throu.Its Addl. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7863 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 488 of 2019
 

 
Appellant :- Ram Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Its Addl. Chief Secy.Basic Edu.Lko.& Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Ji Trivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

C.M. Application No.123819 of 2019

1. This application is taken up through video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Ram Ji Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, and Mr. Q.H. Rizvi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the respondents-State, and perused the record.

3. This application seeks condonation of reported delay of 8 days as on the date of filing of the appeal i.e. 22.10.2021. The application is accompanied with an affidavit. The cause shown in the affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay.

4. The application is allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

5. Office to allot regular number to the appeal.

On Memo

1. This intra-Court appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24069 (S/S) of 2019.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant-petitioner preferred an appeal (representation), which was wrongly rejected and, the appellant-petitioner had no remedy to approach the State Public Services Tribunal against the said order. It is submitted that the writ petition was dismissed by saying that it is an abuse of process of the Court. However, since the appellant-petitioner had no other remedy, he had rightly filed the writ petition.

3. we have considered the submissions and perused the record.

4. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2019, it appears that the appellant-petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.22527 (S/S) of 2016 for the reliefs which were sought in the subsequent writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Thereafter, the petitioner was misguided in filing the alleged appeal under the provisions of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 although there was no such provision of filing appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in fact it was a representation, which was rejected. The learned Single Judge has opined that the representation of the petitioner was not statutory representation and, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner had not been able to point out any rule under which the said representation was maintainable. It is to be noted that the learned Single Judge had found the writ petition to be an abuse of process of the Court as the writ petition was the second writ petition and, after the dismissal of the first writ petition for the same relief.

6. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

[D.K. Singh, J.] [R.R. Awasthi, J.]

Order Date :- 13.7.2021

MVS/-