Allahabad High Court
Harikesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 May, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Chief Justice, J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *** SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1041 of 2021 Harikesh Kumar Yadav .....Appellant Through :- Mr. Harish Chandra Pratap, Advocate v/s State of U.P. and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, JUDGE ORDER 1. Challenge in the present intra-Court appeal is to the order dated June 30, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, relying upon the Single Bench judgment in Writ - A No. 14663 of 2020, tilted as 'Neetu Yadav v. State of U.P. and others'. 2. The contention raised is that the judgment passed in Neetu Yadav (supra) was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 343 of 2021, titled as 'Abhishek Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others' and certain directions were given after awarding marks for error in the answer key of the questions. Similar relief has been prayed for. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellant was a fence-sitter. The result of the competitive examination was declared on August 13, 2018. He filed the writ petition nearly three years thereafter. Even otherwise, the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Abhishek Srivastava (supra) were limited to the writ petitioners, whose appeals were considered in that bunch. Hence, the appellant cannot be granted any relief on the basis thereof. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed on account of the fact that the appellant did not have any grievance against the result declared for the competitive examination on August 13, 2018. He filed the writ petition nearly three years thereafter. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant was that he came to know about passing of the order dated December 15, 2020 in Writ -A No. 11372 of 2020, titled as 'Pushpendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others' and thereafter filed a writ petition. 5. Any order passed by the Court is not a cause of action for a party to initiate the proceedings. The issue of delay and laches has to be considered in reference to the cause of action. The same was in the case in hand on August 13, 2018, when the result was declared. The appellant did not feel aggrieved. He approached the Court only after considering orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions. 6. In any case, the Division Bench of this Court in Abhishek Srivastava (supra) has already directed that the directions issued are limited to the writ petitioners in the bunch of appeals and the Court was not disturbing the appointments already made. In case, the present appeal is entertained, again the entire process will be re-opened, which is not the spirit of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. (J.J. Munir, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.) Allahabad 16.05.2022 I. Batabyal/Brijesh Maurya Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
