The State Of U.P. And 3 Others vs Imran Khan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7939 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 280 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- Imran Khan
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Ray
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Atipriya Gautam
 

 
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

Order on Delay Condonation Application.

Heard Sri Anand Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Sunil Kumar, counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.

The application seeks condonation of 64 days' delay in filing the appeal.

Grounds shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal shall now be treated to have filed within time.

The delay condonation application stands, accordingly, disposed of.

Order on Appeal.

This intra court appeal has been filed questioning the judgment and order dated 13.4.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 20311 of 2018 (Imran Khan v. State of U.P. and others) whereby the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the respondent-petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of Police Constable and Constable PAC treating him as an OBC candidate and domicile of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law in allowing the writ petition inasmuch as the advertisement for the post in question required the candidate to be domicile of the State of U.P. as well as caste certificate was required to be for the period 1.4.2015 or thereafter. He further submits that since the domicile certificate of the respondent-petitioner was dated 25.6.2013 and caste certificate was dated 20.4.2016, the respondent-petitioner was treated to be a general category candidate and since the marks obtained by the petitioner was less than the last general category candidate, he was not selected.

Per contra, counsel for the respondent-petitioner submits that the petitioner is a domicile of the State of Uttar Pradesh and certificate to that effect was issued on 25.6.2013 which has been brought on record at page 135 of the paper book. It is further contended that the caste certificate submitted by the respondent-petitioner was dated 20.4.2016 being issued after the date 1.4.2015 mentioned in the advertisement dated 29.12.2015 and as such there was no occasion for the appellants to treat the petitioner-respondent as a general category candidate ignoring the OBC certificate. There is no dispute as regards the fact that the petitioner is a domicile of the State of U.P. The only dispute is with regard to the date of issuance of the caste certificate. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is an OBC category candidate and the marks obtained by him in the category of OBC is higher than the last OBC category candidate selected in the selection.

In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition.

The special appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.7.2022

RK

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J) (Pritinker Diwaker,J)