HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 242 of 2013 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. Order on Section 5 Application No.68044 of 2013 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner. 2. The delay in filing the instant appeal has been sufficiently explained. 3. The application is allowed. 4. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. Office is directed to allot regular number to the appeal. Order on Memo of Appeal 1. The respondent/petitioner filed a writ petition praying for writ of mandamus commanding the appellants/State to permit him to join on the post of Reserve Bandi Rakshak in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 09.03.2012. It appears that the respondent/petitioner was not permitted to join as he had failed to provide copies of relevant certificates attested by gazetted officer as was required from him by the appellants. It further appears that there were in all five persons like the petitioner/respondent, who were not given joining on the said ground. The writ petition filed by one of them being Writ-A No.18498 of 2012 was allowed on 20.07.2012. Relevant part of the said order is as follows: "Sri S.P. Misra, learned Standing Counsel has obtained the relevant instructions which is taken on record. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : A.C.S.C., A.K. Goyal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shiva Kant Srivastava State Of U.P. And Others .....Appellant(s) Shiv Pal Singh .....Respondent(s) Sri S.P. Misra, learned Standing Counsel after receiving the instructions from the authority concerned states that five persons including the petitioner could not be given joining as they had not provided copies of their certificates attested by some Gazetted Officer. Sri S.P.Misra, states that at present he is not in a position to state as to whether from 16.07.2012 till date no appointment either on Class-III or Class -IV posts has been made in the entire State or not?. Accordingly,it appears that the said order was meant only for few days. Moreover petitioner had already been appointed, it was only a question of joining. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join on the post within ten days from today. Petitioner is directed to supply requisite copies of the certificates etc. attested by Gazetted Officer." 2. The learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that in identical facts and circumstances one of the writ petitions had already been allowed, and therefore, the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner has also been allowed in same terms. Aggrieved thereby the instant appeal has been filed. 3. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel fairly admits that in pursuance of order of writ Court, the writ petitioner was given joining. He submits that since there was direction by the writ Court that joining would be given subject to the writ petitioner submitting requisite documents, therefore, the said formality must have been completed by the petitioner. He therefore states that for all practical purposes the instant appeal has become infructuous. 4. In view of the aforesaid stand, the instant appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. October 29, 2025 S.Prakash SPLAD No. 242 of 2013 2 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad