- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on the question of condonation of delay in filing the special appeal. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 185 days. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. Cause shown is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the special appeal. The delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. The appeal shall be treated to be filed well within time.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on merit and perused the record. The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2005 passed by his Lordship Hon. V.K. Shukla,J. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21810 of 2004, Vimla Maurya v. State of U.P. and others, by which his Lordship has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner appellant by treating her as OBC category candidate. The aforesaid judgment has been challenged on the ground that the caste certificate annexed by the appellant was not according to the condition of the advertisement. Learned Standing counsel submits that the caste certificate was to be of the date not prior to six months of the last date of filling up of the form, whereas in the present case when the form was filled up the respondent petitioner had annexed caste certificate of the year 1994 showing herself of OBC category which was older than six months. Therefore, her candidature was not considered as per terms and condition of the advertisement. We have specifically required the learned Standing counsel to place the condition of the advertisement in this regard. He has invited the attention of the Court towards the Government order dated 14th January, 2004, Annexure-1 to the stay application to this special appeal and particular attention of the Court has been drawn towards conditions Nos. 5 and 6 of the aforesaid Government Order. The condition Nos. 5 and 6 are quoted herein-below. JUDGEMENT_148_ADJ2_2011Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_148_ADJ2_2011Image2.jpg
(3.) FROM the perusal of condition No. 5 it appears that the form has to be filled up in accordance with the proforma prescribed for filling up of the form and the candidate is also required to give an undertaking to the effect that the declarations given in the form are true and in case the undertaking given by the candidate is found to be false his form shall stand cancelled and penal action may also be taken against him/her. Condition No. 6 stipulates that all the certificates/ testimonials which have been mentioned in the form have to be of the date prior to the date of filling up of the form. Here, in the present case as transpires from the record, the candidate has annexed the caste certificate issued in the year 1994 showing herself to be of Other Backward Class. It appears that at the time of counselling an objection was raised that as the caste certificate is of the year 1994, therefore, it is not placing reliance upon it. The petitioner in the circumstances was required to file new caste certificate. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for another caste certificate on 20.9.2004 and produced the same before the authority concerned but nothing was done by the authorities. The petitioner then approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 36207 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7.9.2004 with the direction to the authority concerned to decide the matter afresh. Thereafter, the petitioner represented the matter before the authority concerned and she was required to appear for counselling at Lucknow. Pursuant thereto the petitioner appeared and produced all the required document and on 7.10.2004 but her claim has been non-suited on the ground that caste certificate was of 20th September, 2004, i.e. after the date of filling up of the form. His Lordship while dealing with aforesaid aspect of matter has found that earlier the claim of the respondent petitioner had been non-suited on the ground that her caste certificate was of the year 1994 and later her claim was non-suited on the ground that the caste certificate is of the date after the last date of filling up of the form and the Court has found that the respondents have taken too technical view of the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioner, though denied that the petitioner does not belong to OBC category.;