Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52746-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 262 of 2025 Appellant :- State Of Up And 3 Others Respondent :- Sheikh Ahmad Ansari And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeshwar Tripathi,S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Imran Syed Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2025 Registry has reported that the present Special Appeal is filed beyond time by 98 days. Sufficient reason is disclosed for the delay, so occasioned. This application for condonation of delay is duly supported by an affidavit. Cause of delay in filing of the Appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Accordingly, the Application for the condonation of delay in filing of appeal is allowed. Delay is condoned. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed within time. Re: Special Appeal Learned counsel for the appellant argues that proper advertisement as was statutorily required was not made before the appointment was offered to the respondents and therefore, the learned Single Judge has fallen in error in allowing the writ petition. So far as the publication in Rashtriya Sahara is concerned, it is not in dispute that the advertisement was found fraudulent. In respect of remaining three newspapers, there is hardly any publication and one of the publication is Rashtriya Sahara was found manipulated. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter has escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant also argues that writ petition has been allowed at the stage of fresh writ petition itself without inviting a counter affidavit. Submission is that denial of opportunity to file a counter affidavit has caused serious prejudice to the appellant-State, inasmuch as it has been saddled with responsibility of payment of salary to teachers, who were not validly appointed. Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- petitioners does not dispute the fact that in the writ petition, no time was granted to file counter affidavit. Considering the fact that serious factual issues arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that proper course available to learned Single Judge was to have invited a counter affidavit in the matter and thereafter, adjudicate the controversy on merits. Since, writ petition has been allowed at the ex parte stage and legality of the appointment apparently has not been dealt with in light of the facts noticed above, we find substance in the argument of the appellant, which requires consideration. Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- petitioners states that instead of keeping the matter pending, it would be appropriate that the matter be remitted for fresh consideration after inviting affidavits in the matter. In view of the stand taken by Sri Tarun Agarwal, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2024 passed in Writ A No. 15583 of 2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. The appellant-State undertakes to file counter affidavit in the writ petition, within three weeks. The petitioners will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List the writ petition after six weeks for appropriate consideration by the learned Single Judge. We request the learned Single Judge to consider the matter on merits as per his Lordship's earliest convenience. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Noman Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad