Ref:- Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018.
Heard Sri Siddharth Khare learned counsel for the appellant.
The appeal is stated to be barred by time by 28 days.
We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the grounds urged are sufficient to condone the delay so as to treat the appeal within time.
The delay condonation application is allowed. The appeal shall be treated to be within time and shall be given a regular number by the office.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 S.Chaurasia .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Heard Sri Siddharth Khare learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The appellant Satendra Gangwar alongwith four others filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal praying that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to get a fresh medical report through an Independent Medical Board for being selected as a Constable in the UP Police Services. The writ petition was drafted and it contains 17 paragraphs but no material was adduced alongwith the writ petition as a result whereof the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the finding that the petitioner has not brought on record any material so as to substantiate the allegations.
This appeal has now been filed alongwith a certificate on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant and is Annexure No. 5 to the Stay Application appended to this appeal. This document is dated 21st July, 2018 alleged to have been issued from the office of the Chief Medical Superintendent District Hospital Badaun.
On a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition and also from the records thereof as has been appended, the writ petition was drafted on 1st July, 2018 and then presented before the Court whereafter it came to be decided on 18th July, 2018. It is after the dismissal of the writ petition that the said fitness certificate on which now reliance is being placed has been filed alongwith the stay application. The said fitness certificate therefore is nothing else but a complete afterthought and a document procured in order to substantiate something which was not even there before the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge was not justified in arriving at the conclusions recorded by him. Even though the proceedings under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are a continuity of the writ petition and the power exercised is the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet the provisions of appeal do apply and there is nothing pleaded or even brought on record to indicate as to why the said document was not in the possession of the appellant inspite of exercise of due diligence in order to substantiate the claim before the writ court. There is no prayer for filing of additional evidence. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed as the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from either any legal or factual infirmity.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 S.Chaurasia