State of U.P. and Others vs Shyam Prakash

The special appeal has arisen from an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge dated 24 September 2013.

Aggrieved by his non-selection under the Ex-servicemen quota for the Basic Teachers Certificate Training Course of 2004, the respondent filed a writ petition1, which was disposed of on 31 July 2009 by granting liberty to the respondent to make a representation to the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training2 who was to pass a reasoned order on the representation. On 29 October 2009, the Principal of DIET passed a speaking order to the effect that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Ex-servicemen quota, on a verification of the records of the District Ex-servicemen Welfare and Rehabilitation Officer, Fatehpur. A second writ petition3 was filed by the respondent for a mandamus to select him for 2011 batch of BTC. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 21 November 2012, holding as follows:

"Petitioner has not at all disclosed before this Court as to what is last cut of merit from the petitioner''s category, who has been selected and admitted for B.T.C. Training Course, 2011 and coupled with this petitioner has not at all disclosed as to what was the circumstance, his candidature has been non suited.

Record in question prima facie reflects that writ petition in question is speculative in nature, as petitioner intends to know the reason for non suiting his candidature. Now under Right to Information Act, 2005, petitioner can legitimately collect information under the aforementioned provision for knowing reason, as to why his candidature has been non suited. At this juncture present writ petition is not at all being entertained with liberty to petitioner to collect the information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and in case there is any grievance still left to be remedied, then petitioner can always approach this Court."

Subsequently, in compliance with the order of the Court, the Principal of DIET, by a letter dated 15 March 2013, supplied information to the respondent. In the meantime, the respondent submitted an application in response to an advertisement for BTC Training Course-2012 online under the Ex-servicemen quota. A writ petition4 filed by the respondent was disposed of on 6 February 2013, directing an examination of the claim. The Director of State Council of Educational Research and Training5 sought a verification of the claim for the benefit of Ex-servicemen quota from the Air Force authorities. In response thereto, the Group Captain Director III A (Welfare), Directorate of Air Veterans intimated that the respondent had not rendered minimum period of qualifying service in the Air Force. Following the receipt of the communications from the Air Force authorities, it appears that a further writ petition was filed in which, the impugned interim order has been passed on 24 September 2013.

The relief which the respondent has claimed in the writ petition is for setting aside an order dated 5 July 2013 passed by the Director, SCERT, rejecting his claim for consideration of his candidature for BTC Training Course-2012. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has merely recorded the submissions of the respondent in the following terms and observed that the matter needs consideration:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to a certificate issued by the Commanding Officer, CTI Air Force, dated 10.2.1998, which indicates that the petitioner was discharged from Air Force on 31.01.1998 on medical ground. He further submits that this certificate has not been considered in proper perspective."

In the meantime, a direction has been issued to consider the respondent for BTC Training Course-2012 under the Ex-servicemen quota.

The respondent has been served to appear, but he failed to appear.

We find merit in the contention of the appellants that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge virtually contains no reason whatsoever for the grant of interim relief of this nature. The respondent has sought to challenge an order passed by the Director, SCERT on 5 July 2013, declining his request for being considered for BTC Training Course-2012 under the Ex-servicemen quota. Unless that order is stayed or set aside, such a relief could not be granted to the respondent. Prima facie, at least, it appears that the claim of the respondent was duly examined on several occasions on the basis of material available on the record. Grant of such interim relief virtually amounted to the grant of a final order in the writ petition without expressing any reason by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we are of the view that a fit and proper case has been made out to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, which contains no reason at all.

For these reasons, we allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 24 September 2013.

There shall be no order as to costs.

The Registry has reported one year and 342 days'' delay in filing the special appeal.

An affidavit has been filed by the Principal of the District Institute of Education & Training, Fatehpur in support of the delay condonation application. The affidavit would indicate that after a copy of the order of the learned Single Judge was received by the Department, necessary steps were taken for obtaining requisite approval for filing a special appeal.

We find no deliberate inaction on the part of the appellants. In any event, having regard to the importance of the issue raised, we deem it appropriate and proper to condone the delay.

The delay in filing the special appeal is, accordingly, condoned. The application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

1Writ Petition No. 38896 of 2009

2DIET

3Writ Petition No. 60023 of 2012

4Writ Petition No. 6747 of 2013

5SCERT