Allahabad High Court
Ved Prakash Mishra vs The State Of U.P.Throu ... on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 179 of 2018
Appellant :- Ved Prakash Mishra
Respondent :- The State Of U.P.Throu Secy.Paramedical And Health And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Prem Shankar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ankit Srivastava,Anurudh Kumar Singh,Pranshu Agrawal,Raghvendra Pandey,Sher Bahadur Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Shri P.S. Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 26 and Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for State/respondent nos.1 to 3.
This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment dated 12.10.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24223 (S/S) of 2017 whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of latches.
The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 15.10.2012 the Director General, Medical and Health Services, UP, had issued an advertisement for making selection to 23 posts of Physiotherapist. The appellant had applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement and he participated in the selection process and appeared for interview, but in the select-list published on 7.10.2013, his name was not there. The select-list included one Rekha Rizvi, whose date of birth had not been mentioned in the list, and one Nitesh Kumar had also been selected, whose selection was subsequently cancelled by means of an order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Director General, Medical and Health Services, on the ground that he did not fulfill the requisite age criteria.
The appellant filed writ petition No. 549 of 2014 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to communicate the marks awarded to him in selection and a further direction for the appellant's appointment, in case it is found after perusal of the record that selection had not been made properly.
The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by means of an order dated 29.1.2014 observing that "the petitioner has not challenged the selection held on the post in question, as such no direction can be issued to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post in question, however, so far as the direction to communicate the result of the petitioner is concerned, the opposite party may communicate the marks obtained by the petitioner in selection." Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for being informed the marks obtained by him and when the same was not done, he filed civil miscellaneous contempt application No.842 of 2015 and in the counter affidavit filed in the aforesaid case it was stated that "due to fire incident occurred in the office of the Directorate on 14.6.2015, the concerned section was sealed and due to same record pertaining to selection could not be verified in time, but the Committee constituted therefor has convened its meeting on 5.5.2016 and verified the sealed record regarding selection in question."
In response to an application submitted by the appellant on 9.7.2016 under the Right to Information Act 2005 the Director, Paramedical, informed to the appellant by means of a letter dated 24.3.2017 that there was no such record because of the fire incident.
Thereafter the appellant filed writ petition No. 24223 of 2017 submitting all the aforesaid facts and contending that the authorities did not place the correct facts before this court and the select-list has not been prepared in a fair manner.
The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by an Hon'ble Single Judge holding that the appellant had not challenged the select-list published on 7.10.2013 in the earlier writ petition No. 549 of 2014 filed by him and the present petition was filed by him after three and half years. The Hon'ble Single Judge further held that although the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the marks informed by the department could not be the correct marks as a fire had broken out in the respondents' office. The marks intimated to the appellant had not been challenged by him in the writ petition, therefore, the Hon'ble Single Judge was of the view that challenge to the select-list dated 7th October 2013 in the writ petition filed in the year 2017 suffered from latches as four years had passed since the publication of the select-list and 3 and half years had passed since filing and disposal of the earlier writ petition and the writ petition was dismissed for the aforesaid reason.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the writ petition did not suffer from latches as it was filed after the decision of the contempt petition on 3.8.2017.
What transpires from a perusal of the material available on record is that the select-list was published on 7.10.2013, in which the appellant's name was not there and in writ petition No. 549 (SS) of 2014 the appellant did not seek the relief for quashing of the select-list. The select-list has been challenged four years after its publication by filing a fresh writ petition.
The selection of the person whose name had been wrongly included in the select-list, namely, Nitish Shukla, has already been cancelled by means of an order dated 10.2.2013 passed by the Director General, Medical and Health Services, and the other selected persons are serving consequent to their selection made in the year 2013.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and to take a different view of the matter.
The present appeal lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha)
Order Date :- 2.1.2023
A.Nigam
