2019:UHC:15777-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA No.29 of 2019 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. I. D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P./appellants. 2. Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. There is delay of 265 days in filing the special appeal. 4. Despite opportunity, objection to the delay condonation application is not filed by the respondent. For the reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with application, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. 5. This intra-court appeal is filed by State of Uttar Pradesh challenging judgment dated 07.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No.774 of 2010 whereby writ petition filed by respondent herein, seeking appointment in lieu of land acquired from his family, was allowed. The impugned judgment is extracted below:- “The Government of Uttar Pradesh has issued order dated 21.09.1981 to provide job to the family members of those whose land was acquired. The land of petitioner’s family was also acquired for the purpose of project in the irrigation department. Petitioner has already made a representation for redressal of his grievance but the same, till date, has not been decided. This Court was also seized of the similar matter in WPSS No.944 of 2005, which was decided on 01.03.2006 as well as WPSS No.218 of 2010, 2019:UHC:15777-DB decided on 06.04.2010. In sequel to the directions issued by this Court, the case of the petitioner in WPSS No.944 of 2005 was considered and offered appointment letter vide office order dated 12.06.2007. Petitioner is also the similarly situate person and his case is also required to be considered on the analogy of Km. Meenakshi. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the judgment cited hereinabove as well as the appointment letter issued in favour of Km. Meenakshi on 12.006.2007, within a period of ten weeks from today.” 6. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Government Order relied upon by learned Single for allowing the claim of respondent, was considered by Full Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Agra reported in 2005(2) AWC 1650(FB) and it was held that no writ can be issued directing the acquiring body to consider claim for appointment as per Government Orders/Circulars and the acquiring body is not bound by such Government Orders. 7. Mr. I.D. learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants further submits that a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.57 of 2011 has followed the Full Bench Judgement rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra). 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that in a writ petition filed by a similarly situated person namely, Ms. Meenakshi, which was numbered as WPSS No.944 of 2005, learned Single Judge issued a direction to the State to consider the claim of Ms. Meenakshi for appointment, as land belonging 2019:UHC:15777-DB to her family was acquired for public purpose. She submits that learned Single Judge was justified in extending the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of Meenakshi to the case of respondent. 9. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State of U.P. has drawn out attention to paragraph no.6 of the judgment rendered by Division Bench in SPA No.57 of 2011 in which similar argument was considered and repelled by holding that negative equality cannot be claimed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Thus, we are not impressed by submission made by learned counsel for respondent. Since Full Bench of Allahabad High Court and Division Bench of this High Court has held that a member of the family, whose land was acquired, is not entitled to public employment in terms of Government Order dated 21.09.1981, therefore, the view to the contrary taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 11. Thus, the special appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. (Subhash Upadhyay,J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 23.06.2025 Kaushal/SS