Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3323 (ALL)

State of U. P. Thru. Sec. Home v. Abhay Singh

2015-10-26

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT The State is in appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15 May 2015 disposing of a writ petition filed by the respondent by directing consideration of his claim for reinstatement in service on the post of constable in the 43rd Battalion of the Provincial Armed Constabulary in district Etah. The petition was allowed without a counter affidavit being filed by the State by directing consideration of the claim of the respondent and that if he fell under the zone of consideration of the State Government, he shall then be extended all the benefits granted to similarly placed persons. 2. According to the appellants, in the recruitment which took place in 1998, the respondent was selected in the name of a candidate called Amar Singh, son of Ujagar Singh, resident of Gram Patti, Police Station Kurra, District Mainpuri. The selection was cancelled on 31 July 1999 by the Selection Board on the ground that his high school mark sheet was found to be fabricated. Subsequently, it appears that the respondent was selected in 2006 on the post of constable from the district of Etawah. The selection was cancelled on 17 September 2007. The respondent challenged the order of cancellation in Writ-A No 63941 of 2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 1 October 2013. Despite this, the respondent is stated to have then filed another writ petition (Writ-A No 49696 of 2013) which was disposed of on 13 September 2013 by directing that the claim of the respondent should be considered in the same manner as was done in the case of similarly situated candidates. Subsequent to this order, it has been stated that the claim was rejected on 29 December 2013 whereupon another writ petition (Writ-A No 37818 of 2014) was filed which was disposed of on 24 July 2014 by directing reconsideration of his claim. Finally, it has been stated that another writ petition was filed seeking similar reliefs for consideration of the claim notwithstanding the order dated 17 September 2007. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge has been delivered on 15 May 2015. In sum and substance, the contention of the State is that the respondent has filed successive writ petitions without disclosing that the order cancelling his selection on 17 September 2007 was a subject matter of a writ petition which had been dismissed as withdrawn. In sum and substance, the contention of the State is that the respondent has filed successive writ petitions without disclosing that the order cancelling his selection on 17 September 2007 was a subject matter of a writ petition which had been dismissed as withdrawn. Moreover, it has also been contended that the respondent is the same candidate in respect of whose appointment an order of cancellation was passed on 31 July 1999. 3. We have adverted to these aspects of the defence of the State since it is evident from a reading of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge that all these facets have not been taken into consideration. The petition was allowed at the initial stage without a counter affidavit being filed. The respondent who has been served has remained absent. 4. In our view, the ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for a fresh evaluation after a counter affidavit is filed by the State. We clarify that the facts which have been adverted to in the earlier parts of this judgment shall not come in the way of the learned Single Judge for a complete evaluation of the matter. 5. We accordingly allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 15 May 2015. Writ-A No 12889 of 2015 shall stand restored to the file of the learned Single Judge. The appellants would be at liberty to file their counter affidavit within a period of six weeks from today. 6. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open upon remand. 7. The special appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.