Sakir Ali vs State Of U P And 8 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12343 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 286 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Sakir Ali
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 8 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Achchhey Lal Tiwari,Anmol Ratan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohammad Ali Ausaf
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

In Re: Civil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No. 1 of 2023

There is no objection to the explanation given for delay in filing the present appeal.

The delay in filing the present appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.

The delay condonation application is, accordingly, allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The appeal is treated to have been filed within time. Office is directed to allot a regular number to this appeal.

In Re: Appeal

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohammad Ali Ausaf learned Advocate appears for respondent nos. 5 and 6.

This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.1.2023 whereby while dismissing the writ petition, it was noted by the learned Single Judge that in Writ-A No. 45038 of 2016 filed by the petitioner, the petitioner claimed to have been appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 1.11.1983 in the institution in question. Whereas the society itself came into existence and established in the year 1989-90 and the Madarsa in question had been recognized in the year 1998. It was further noted that there is no document in support of the contention of the writ petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 29.6.2005 and on the post of Science Teacher on 27.10.2008.

Considering these findings, we may further record that the order impugned dated 5.8.2022 of rejection of the representation of the petitioner categorically records that from the record of the institution concerned, it is evident that the petitioner had never been appointed in the institution in question on the post of Assistant Teacher nor his appointment has ever been approved by the competent authority.

It is further noted that the appointment on the post of Science teacher of the petitioner in the year 2005 came to an end with the cancellation of his appointment under the resolution dated 1.4.2009 passed by the Committee of Management of the institution concerned, which is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 53601 of 2015. The claim of the petitioner to challenge the validity of appointment of three teachers subsequently appointed in the institution, therefore, cannot be looked into.

There is no dispute about the fact that the services of the petitioners had been brought to an end on 1.4.2009 and the petitioner is not working in the institution in question since thereafter. The aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending consideration.

No infirmity, therefore, can be found in the order of the learned Single judge.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 21.4.2023

Brijesh