JUDGMENT :

Saurabha Srivastava, J.

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2023.

The delay in filing the appeal has been explained in the affidavit.

Cause shown is found sufficient.

Delay is condoned.

Application is allowed.

Order on Appeal.

1. Heard Shri Y.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Mohan Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The Special Appeal is questioning the validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17259 of 2022 (Kumari Deepti versus State of U.P. and others) and further prayed that the respondent be directed to accept the claim of the petitioner for appointment in the O.B.C. category in accordance with law during the pendency of this Special Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission states that while passing the order learned Single Judge has erred and has not considered the Full Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in a bunch of matters, leading being Special Appeal No. 156 of 2017-Gaurav Sharma versus State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 3 Others, 2017 AIR (Allahabad) 116.

4. He submits that in the similar facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 4689 of 2022 (Rinki Yadav versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl Chief Secy. Home (Police) Anubhag-6 Lko. And 3 Others) wherein she was working on the post of Constable and was a candidate for selection to the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Platoon Commander (PAC) and Second Officer in Fire Brigade in pursuance to the Advertisement issued in February, 2021 her candidature was rejected by the respondent that the selection mode is considering the candidature of the petitioner under the General Category rather than treating her under O.B.C. Category, allowed the similar prayer of the petitioner as prayed in the instant petition.

5. The Rinki Yadav (supra) has challenged the said action in the aforementioned Writ Petition where the learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.09.2022 had allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to accept the O.B.C. Certificate submitted by the petitioner and proceeded with the process of selection of the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police). He submits that the said order was subject matter of the Special Appeal Defective No. 274 of 2022 (State of U.P. versus Rinki Yadav 2022 Law Suit (All) 1900.

6. The present Intra Court Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Court with the prayer to quash & set aside the judgment dated 04.01.2023 passed by learned Single Judge and further direct the State authorities, specifically Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (hereinafter referred as the “Recruitment and Promotion Board”) to declare her result treating her candidature belonging to Other Backward Class category, The cause of action arises in favour of the Appellant-Petitioner for filing the writ petition when her result has not been declared in the select list even after securing higher marks than the lowest cut-off marks in the O.B.C. category. The Appellant-Petitioner preferred representation dated 21.08.2022 for seeking declaration of her result under O.B.C. category and the same has not been responded in any manner whatsoever. The learned Single Judge while deciding the petition preferred by the Appellant-Petitioner dismissed the same on the ground that firstly she could not produce the O.B.C. certificate on prescribed format within the time as specified in the advertisement, and thereafter he warranted O.B.C. certificate submitted by the Appellant-Petitioner at highly belated stage.

7. The Recruitment and Promotion Board issued an advertisement in the month of February, 2021 for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police, Platoon Commander P.A.C. and Second Fire Officer. The number of vacancies advertised through the said advertisement were 9534. The Appellant-Petitioner is presently r