Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 110 of 2018 Appellant :- Matloob Khan Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools And Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Shashibind Kumar Srivasatava
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Special Appeal within the period of limitation.
The application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 SK (Dilip Gupta, J.) (Jayant Banerji, J.)
Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 110 of 2018 Appellant :- Matloob Khan Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools And Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Shashibind Kumar Srivasatava
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11 January 2018 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ-A No.43542 of 2000 that had been filed for not only quashing the order dated 9 August 2000 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi but also for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the LT Grade and to pay monthly salary, has been dismissed.
It is submitted that by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the learned Judge as the name of counsel for the petitioner was not printed in the cause list. It is also submitted that cause of action still survives but as the matter has been decided on merits, a recall application cannot be filed.
In the absence of counsel for the petitioner, the learned Judge has, after reading the pleadings, found that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for the Court to interfere. The learned Judge has also observed that the matter may have been rendered infructuous as counsel for the petitioner has not appeared. It was not possible for the learned counsel for the petitioner to have appeared before the Court as his name was not printed in the cause list.
We, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the judgment and order dated 11 January 2018 and restore the writ petition to its original number. When the writ petition is listed, the name of counsel for the petitioner shall be shown in the cause list.
The Special Appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 SK (Dilip Gupta, J.) (Jayant Banerji, J.)