Allahabad High Court
Shree Prakash Rai vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. ... on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 85 of 2023
Appellant :- Shree Prakash Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. (Personal) Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Jauhari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Jauhari, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By instituting the proceedings of this Special Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule V of High Court Rules, the challenge has been made by the appellant-petitioner to an order dated 02.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge whereby Writ A No.17149 of 2020 has been dismissed.
The facts of the case which can be gathered from the pleadings available on record before us are that the selection process for the post of Village Development Officer took place in the year 1998 in which the petitioner participated claiming some benefits of sports quota, however, in the application submitted by him, he clearly indicated code 13 which was for college/school/university level players and did not indicate that he was seeking benefit as the National Level Player for which the code in the application form assigned was code 11. Once he was not given the benefit of National Level Player, he failed to select and thereafter, instituted Writ Petition No.184 (S/S) of 1999 which was finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by means of an order dated 31.07.2009 whereby the authority concerned was directed to decide the representation to be preferred by the appellant-petitioner.
In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.184 (S/S) of 1999, the representation made by the appellant-petitioner was considered by the appropriate authority, however, the same did not find favour with him and accordingly, the representation was rejected by means of an order dated 13.11.2009.
Challenging the said order dated 13.11.2009, the petitioner instituted another writ petition namely Writ Petition No.2589 (S/S) of 2010 which was decided by learned Single Judge of this Court by means of an order dated 16.10.2019 whereby a direction was issued to the authority concerned to consider the representation of the appellant-petitioner ignoring the earlier order dated 13.11.2009.
It is in compliance of this order dated 16.10.2019 that the order dated 14.05.2020 was passed by District Development Officer, Ambedkar Nagar considering the representation of the petitioner whereby the representation made by the appellant-petitioner was again rejected. Challenging the said order dated 14.05.2020, the petitioner instituted the proceedings of Writ A No.17149 of 2020 which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court by means of an order dated 02.02.2023 which is under challenge before us in this Special Appeal.
When we peruse the order dated 14.05.2022 in respect of which Writ A No.17149 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner what we notice is that District Development Officer, Ambedkar Nagar, while considering the representation made by the appellant-petitioner claiming the benefits of National Level Player in the year 1998 for appointment to the post of Village Development Officer, has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant did not indicate code 13 rather he had indicated code 11 in the application form which was meant for the college/school/university level players. Once the wrong code was indicated by the appellant-petitioner, after selection is over, in our considered opinion, he cannot not claim to have been considered the benefit of his being a national level player. Even otherwise, the selection was held in the year 1998 and at this juncture any interference in the said selection will be completely unwarranted.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the judgment dated 02.02.2003 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No.17149 of 2020 is liable to be upheld.
We, thus, do not see any scope of interference in this special appeal, which is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
S. Shivhare
