JUDGMENT Ref: Delay Condonation Application For the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in support of Delay Condonation Application, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing Special Appeal, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time. Ref: Special Appeal Prahlad Yadav is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 15.2.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 31643 of 2012 (Prahlad Yadav & another Vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition in question by mentioning that any relief that would be accorded to the petitioner appellant, would be dehorse the statutes/ordinances. Before us Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel representing the petitioner appellant, is trying to contend that during the period when petitioner appellant was pursuing his Ph.D. course a serious issue has been raised qua his candidature and the said cloud has been cleared by a committee constituted in this regard on 3.10.2012 and, in view of this, petitioner appellant cannot be held responsible for such a situation and, accordingly, learned Single Judge ought to have accorded the requisite relief, as has been claimed by the petitioner appellant in the peculiar backdrop of the case. Sri Vivek Verma, Advocate, representing the university concerned, on the other hand, contended that induction of petitioner appellant and other similarly situated incumbents have been nothing but an outcome of fraud and manipulations and once other similarly situated incumbents have been before this Court and this Court asked the Vice Chancellor of the university concerned to take a call on the same and then the Vice Chancellor has proceeded to take a call by clearly mentioning that the entry of all these Ph.D. researchers have been an outcome of manipulations and maneuverings and writ petition preferred against the same has been dismissed and not only this special appeal preferred against the order passed in writ petition has also been dismissed by this Court on 20.9.2012 and as far as petitioner appellant is concerned, his claim is also identically situated to the said incumbents, in view of this, no relief or reprieve can be given to the petitioner appellant by this Court and special appeal is liable to be dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced as petitioner appellant is trying to make much capital out of the enquiry report dated 3.10.2012, we in our turn has proceeded to peruse the said enquiry report and what we find from the same is that even the said enquiry report clearly proceeds to make a mention that as far as selection/registration of petitioner appellant as Ph.D. scholar is concerned, same has been in contravention of the Rules but it has been mentioned that on equitable grounds liberal view be taken in the matter. Once this Court on the earlier occasion has proceeded to record a finding that entry of the incumbents is based on fraud and manipulations and same cannot be subscribed in the eyes of law, then based on the recommendation of the university that liberal view be taken in the matter, we cannot accord any relief to the petitioner appellant, specially when registration of the petitioner appellant as a research scholar was not at all subscribed by the law, that has been prevailing at the said point of time, in view of this, for this additional reason also and as earlier this Court has refused to intervene in the matter, there is no reason or occasion for us to take a different or contrary view, as has been taken earlier by this Court. Special appeal sans merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.