Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 612 of 2018 Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pramil Kumar,Shree Prakash Giri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Giri for the appellant contends that the appellant's selection and appointment as a constable came to be cancelled and the services of the appellant was dispensed with way back in the year 2007 on the ground that he was suffering from partial colour vision.
The appellant did not challenge the same for almost 7 years and in the year 2014 he filed a writ petition no. 13613 of 2014 which was disposed of on 5th March 2014 with a direction to the authority to consider the representation of the petitioner - appellant and pass a fresh order.
The claim of the appellant was rejected on 18th May 2014, against which no action was taken by the appellant namely neither any writ petition was filed against the same nor any further steps were taken to question the correctness thereof.
It appears that later on a judgement was delivered on 16th December 2016 in another case namely Writ Petition no. 3500 of 2015 decided on 16.12.2016, Ali Mohammad Vs. State of U.P. where such benefit under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 was extended to the petitioner therein. It is thereafter that the appellant filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal praying for a mandamus that the same benefit should be extended to him and he should be engaged as a constable.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that since there is a circular not to continue any person who is medically unfit and even otherwise since there was no challenge raised to the judgement dated 18.5.2014 therefore, writ petition was not entertainable.
Having considered the submissions raised, the aforesaid facts remain undisputed, particularly the fact that the order dated 18th may 2014 passed by the authority was not challenged in any proceeding before any authority. Consequently, the same is a permanent hurdle and attaches finality to the claim and grievance of the appellant. Learned Single Judge was therefore, justified in declining to exercise discretion in the matter. There is therefore no merit in this appeal and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 19.9.2018 Gss .
.
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 612 of 2018 Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pramil Kumar,Shree Prakash Giri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018. Heard Sri S.P. Giri, learned counsel for the appellant. There is a delay of 110 days reported in the appeal.
We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application and we find that the cause shown is sufficient. The delay is condoned and the delay condonation application is allowed.
The appeal shall be treated to be filed within time and the office is directed to give a regular number to the appeal.
Order Date :- 19.9.2018 Gss