Allahabad High Court
State Of U P And 3 Others vs Vineet Kumar on 24 July, 2023
Bench: Siddhartha Varma, Manoj Bajaj
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146819-DB
Court No. - 3
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 470 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Respondent :- Vineet Kumar
Counsel for Appellant :- Tej Bhanu Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
C.M. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2023
The grounds taken in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application are found to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is considered as having been filed within time.
The application is allowed.
Special Appeal
1. We have heard Sri Tej Bhanu Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/appellants and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the petitioner, by an interim order, could not have been allowed to be sent for training and, therefore, he states that the interim order ought not to have been passed in the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that upon finding that the impugned order dated 17.2.2023 was passed without following any of the conditions given under Rules 11 and 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "2015 Rules"), the interim order was passed by the writ Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the comments to Rule 11 of the 2015 Rules, a candidate, who had been dismissed from the service of the Central Government or the State Government or the local bodies or corporations functioning under the control of the Central Government or the State Government alone was not eligible for appointment. He further submits that a candidate, who had been convicted for committing offence of moral turpitude would also not be eligible for appointment. As such, the provisions of Rule 11 of the 2015 Rules were not applicable in the case of the petitioner as the petitioner had not been dismissed earlier on any occasion and he had also never been convicted for moral turpitude.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the petitioner had filled up his form, he had given an affidavit and in paragraph 11 of the said affidavit he had clearly mentioned about the pendency of the criminal case. He has further submitted that in the criminal case, which he had mentioned in the affidavit, he had also been acquitted by the judgment and order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 18.5.2023. Photostat copy of the judgment and order dated 18.5.2023 was passed on to us and is being kept on the record. It has also been stated that in the writ petition the respondents had not filed any counter affidavit till date.
6. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has submitted that a special appeal against an interim order was not maintainable.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge, after considering Rules 11 and 16 of the 2015 Rules, had passed the order impugned in accordance with law and thus no interference is warranted in this special appeal. Both the parties may make efforts to get the writ petition decided expeditiously.
8. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.7.2023
Rakesh
(Manoj Bajaj, J) (Siddhartha Varma, J)
