State of U.P. and others vs Mohan Lal and others

There is delay of 261 days in filing the appeal. A counter affidavit has been filed today to the Section 5 application. The prayer for filing of rejoinder is turned down and the reasons there for will appear below.

The prayer was also made on behalf the intended Stateappellant that the matter be released from our Bench and be listed before the Bench of Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.R. Alam and Hon''ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath on the ground that several similar such appeals are pending there. The prayer for release was opposed by the writ petitionersrespondents on the ground of urgency.

The impugned order passed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice Arun Tandon on the 27th of January, 2006 directs a consideration of the writ petitioners'' case for regularisation in GroupD i.e. Class IV employee on the basis of the Regularisation Rules of 2001.

The respondents submit that after several contempt applications were filed, ultimately the State authorities gave a decision complying with the impugned order dated 27.1.2006. It is a decision of rejection and the respondent is aggrieved with it but we are not concerned with that subsequent fact in this appeal. The date of the decision is 12.7.2006.

None of the contempt applications are mentioned in the delay condonation application. This is not at all a proper way to pray for use of the Court''s discretion for condoning the delay, all facts should be brought out honestly before the Court and if that is not done, even though the deponent have the knowledge of all the relevant facts, then and in that event, that is by itself quite sufficient for the Court to refuse to entertain the appeal.

Furthermore, we are not at all minded to enter into the reasons of the decision given on 27.1.2006 by the Hon''ble Single Judge or into a discussion of the authorities mentioned there. Such an exercise would be futile since the order has been complied with by passing of a decision thereon. Touching the order at this stage which has thus become binding by acceptance thereof and action thereupon will work to the prejudice of the respondentswrit petitioners, to whom a right has accrued by reason of the acceptance of the impugned order by the State Government.

On these grounds it would be most improper to entertain this in fructuous appeal at this stage after condonation of delay on an affidavit which is wanting in many respects. The application for condonation is rejected, the appeal is dismissed as not entertained.