Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3650 (ALL)

Santosh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2015-11-23

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT This special appeal has arisen from an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge dated 15 October 2015. During the course of the hearing of the special appeal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners, respondents 4, 5 and 6 to the special appeal, has placed on the record a copy of an order dated 2 November 2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Appeal No.801 of 2015) which arose from the same order which is impugned in the present special appeal. The Division Bench while dismissing the special appeal observed as follows: "On the matter being taken up today, from the side of appellants, it has been sought to be contended that on account of passing of such an interim order the zone of consideration has been enlarged by the learned Single Judge and such an order ought not to have been passed and, in the facts of the case, net effect of passing of such a general order is that large number of candidates have been permitted to undertake the counselling in question and process of issuance of appointment letter is on. We have examined the order dated 15.10.2015 and what we find from the said order in question is that in pith and substance the order in question is purely provisional in nature for the simple reason that orders have been passed allowing the candidates to provisionally participate in the counselling and, thereafter, further directives have been issued that in case they are selected, in their appointment letters it would be clearly mentioned that their appointments shall be subject to the result of this writ petition. Once such is the factual situation that provisional permission has been accorded by the learned Single Judge by exercising his discretion in favour of candidates and it has also been made clear that in case they are selected, their appointment shall be subject to the result of the writ petition in question, then in the facts of the case, in our opinion appropriate remedy for the appellants, who are before us or other similarly situated candidates, is to join the respondents of the aforementioned writ petition and resist their claim on merits instead of filing of present special appeal. Special appeal is dismissed, accordingly." Since an order has been passed by a coordinate Division Bench dismissing the special appeal against the same order of the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the present special appeal and following the same order, we decline to entertain the present special appeal. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.