A.F.R.

Court No. - 40

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 109 of 2023

Appellant :- Kumari Deepti

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena,Ram Sajivan

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

(Per: 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 Civl 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 Judgement 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 Appella