Priyanka Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 16496 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 342 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Priyanka Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

In Re:- Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2022

We have heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi for the appellant; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and Ms. Archana Singh for the respondent no.4.

By this delay condonation application, the applicant seeks condonation of 212 days delay in filing the intra court appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.12.2021 passed in Writ-A No.13307 of 2021.

At the out set, it be noticed that the prayer of the petitioner (the appellant herein) in Writ-A No.13307 of 2021 was to allocate marks to the petitioner for question No.145 with respect to Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018. The writ petition of the appellant was dismissed after hearing the counsel for the parties and by observing that there had been a challenge to the key answers in a bunch of writ petitions filed earlier, which was not accepted by the Court vide order dated 07.05.2021 passed in lead Writ-A No.4052 of 2020 against which Special Appeal Defective No.343 of 2021 was partly allowed and thereafter, selection process has been completed therefore, if such a belated challenge is entertained, then recruitment/selection will process never come to an end.

In that context, we proceed to examine the explanation offered by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, there is no worthwhile explanation as to why the petitioner (the appellant herein) could not earlier file the appeal even though she was fully aware of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The only explanation offered is that the appellant could not come to Prayagraj to discuss the niceties of the case with her lawyer and only when the matter was discussed, the appellant borrowed money to file the appeal.

We do not find the explanation satisfactory, particularly, in the contextual facts of the case noticed above. We, therefore, decline the prayer of the appellant to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay condonation application is, accordingly, rejected.

As the appeal is beyond time by 212 days, the same is dismissed as barred by limitation.

Order Date :- 10.11.2022

AKShukla/-