HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 252 of 2020 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. C.M.A. No.57077 of 2020 (Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard. 2. Having gone through the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application in filing the special appeal, cause shown for the delay in filing the special appeal is sufficient. The application is allowed and the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. Order on Appeal 3. By means of this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.12.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.5824 (S/S) of 2014 (Manish Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. & others). 4. At the very outset, it has been fairly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that by the aforesaid judgment dated 20.12.2019, three writ petitions were allowed. The other two writ petitions being Writ Petition No.5613 (S/S) of 2014 (Piyush Kumar Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. & others) and Writ Petition No.2328 (S/S) of 2014 (Surjeet Singh Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. & others). The State has preferred the appeal only against the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.5824 (S/S) of 2014. It is inexplicable as to why no appeal has been preferred in respect of the petitioners of the other two writ petitions in which also the same issue was involved. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pradip Kumar Srivastava State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Home Lucknow And Ors. .....Appellant(s) Manish Kumar And Another .....Respondent(s) 5. In nutshell, the private respondents herein just as the petitioners of the other writ petitions, against which no appeal has been filed, appeared in a selection for appointment as Constable in the Civil Police in the State of U.P. Some of them joined and thereafter medical examination took place and they were found to be suffering from colour blindness. Ultimately, their services were terminated on 07.09.2007. In the case of the respondent- petitioners Manish Kumar and Arvind Kumar Yadav, their services were terminated after they had put in three years of service, a fact which is mentioned in the impugned judgment and not denied by the counsel for the appellant. The Writ Court has allowed the writ petitions of the respondents- petitioners against the said order dated 07.09.2007 and there being no stay in this appeal, the said judgment has been complied qua the respondent- petitioners no.1 and 2. Not only this, the said judgment has also been complied with regard to the other petitioners of the petitions which were disposed of along with Writ Petition No.5824 (S/S) of 2014. 6. We have gone through the judgment impugned before us and we find that the said judgment has been allowed on the strength of judgments and orders passed in similar matters, such as Ali Mohammad Vs. State of U.P. & others, Writ Petition No.3500 (S/S) of 2015, decided on 16.12.2016, against which the special appeal has also been dismissed and ultimately the special leave petition has also been dismissed. Likewise, another writ petition (Pramod Prasad & another Vs. State of U.P. & others) bearing Writ-A No.66951 of 2009, involving similar issue pertaining to the same recruitment, was initially dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 09.12.2009, but the special appeal against writ bearing Special Appeal No.59 of 2015 was allowed vide judgment and order dated 15.05.2019 and against the said judgment Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27004 of 2019 (State of U.P. & others Vs. Pramod Prasad & another) was filed which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2019. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant could not deny that the aforesaid SPLAD No. 252 of 2020 2 judgments also involve the same issue and pertained to the same recruitment. 8. In view of the facts and reasons already discussed hereinabove and considering the fact that against similar judgments and orders passed in similar writ petitions, the special appeals have been disposed of/allowed in favour of the similarly situated persons and the SLPs have also been dismissed and as the judgment impugned herein has already been complied with, therefore, we find no reason to interfere in this intra-court appeal. 9. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. October 8, 2025 Anand/- SPLAD No. 252 of 2020 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench