Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) VAKALATNAMA was filed by Smt. Meera, Advocate on 25.1.2012, on behalf of the opposite party No. 3. Today when the case has been taken up she is not present. On record no affidavit is available on behalf of the opposite party No. 3. Further learned counsel for the applicant Sri A.N. Rai states that he has not received any affidavit from the opposite party No. 3. In the circumstances let bailable warrants be issued to the opposite party No. 3 to remain present before this Court on the next date to explain as to why the affidavit in response to the notice of contempt application was not filed within the time and even after almost a month when the Vakalatnama was filed.
(2.) SRI P.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has filed an application supported by an affidavit of the opposite party No. 1 praying for deferment of the hearing of the contempt application till hearing of the Special Appeal proposed to be filed by the State against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, of which non compliance is alleged. Further Sri Mohit Kumar Singh, Advocate representing the opposite party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the salary bills of the applicant have already been prepared and forwarded to the D.I.O.S., Muzaffar Nagar on 17.2.2012 and as such no further action is required on their part at this stage. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit in reply to the affidavit of opposite party No. 4. From a perusal of the record it appears that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the applicant vide judgment and order dated 17.8.2011, relying upon previous judgments of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 30862 of 2000, 18.7.2001 passed in writ petition No. 34517 of 2000 as also the Division Bench judgment dated 12.7.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 60 of 2003 (filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.7.2001). In all the aforesaid judgments it was held that the objection with regard to the ban on appointments was not sustainable and further the petitioners therein were entitled to be granted approval to their appointments and also the salary from the date on which the institution came on the grant -in -aid. Now from the affidavit of the opposite party No. 1 it appears that on the request made by the opposite party No. 1, the Additional Law Remembrancer (Additional Law Secretary) by the letter dated 14.2.2012 has communicated to the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad that an intra court appeal be filed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2011.
(3.) IT is the sweet will of the litigants to avail such remedy open to it under law against any judgment or order. It is also open to the State to file an appeal against the judgment of the writ Court but at the same time the State cannot blindly or without application of mind decide to file appeal in all matters in which request is sent. Office of the Legal Remembrancer (Law Secretary) is to examine as to whether or not any question of law arises for consideration and adjudication by the higher Courts and based upon such satisfaction that leave to file an appeal is granted.;