Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Sunil Kumar Pandey And 3 Others on 21 December, 2023
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242207-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 859 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Pandey And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.,S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Srivastava Iii
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Ref: Order on Delay Condonation Application.
The delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court and is otherwise not seriously opposed.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
This appeal is by the State challenging judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2023 passed in Writ-A No.48526 of 2017. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of Joint Director of Education, Kanpur region, Kanpur dated 04.10.2017 on the ground that the Government Order dated 04.09.2013 could not have been given a retrospective effect. The reasoning assigned by learned Single Judge is extracted hereinafter:
"In the opinion of the Court the resort to Government Order dated 4th September, 2013 to non suit the petitioner is totally unwarranted, inasmuch as the issue in this writ petition is with regard to grant of financial approval to the appointment, which relates back to the year 1999. The Government Order dated 4th September, 2013 cannot be said to have retrospective operation so as to non suit the petitioner, moreover, once the Joint Director of Education has granted approval to the appointment of the candidate who was selected along with the petitioner in the same selection the Court sees no reason to take a different view as regards the grant of approval in the case of the petitioner.
For the above reasons, the order dated 04.10.2017, passed by the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur region Kanpur, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. "
Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that the appointment of the respondent-petitioner was otherwise not in accordance with law and, therefore, the writ petition could not have been allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent- petitioner points out that the only reason assigned by the Joint Director of Education for rejecting the claim of financial approval was the Government Order dated 04.09.2013. Operative portion of the order of Joint Director of Education reads as under:
" ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ????????, ????????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????, ??????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ???????? ?????? 04 ??????? 2013 ??? ???? ??? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ???, ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ???
???? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ?????? 26.07.2016 ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???"
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the only reason assigned by the Joint Director of Education to non-suit the respondent petitioner was the retrospective application of Government Order dated 04.09.2013 whereby a decision was taken to fill the post by way of outsourcing. We find no error in the reasoning assigned by learned Single Judge that such Government Order could not have been given a retrospective application nor could it have been made applicable upon the appointments made prior to 04.09.2013. In that view of the mater we decline to interfere in the present special appeal which is consigned to records.
Before parting we may clarify that learned Single Judge has not adverted to the legality of the appointment offered to respondent petitioner in 1999. The concerned authority while taking a fresh decision in the matter shall be at liberty to examine the legality of the appointment itself. Required consideration would be made within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 21.12.2023
C. MANI
