The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), comprising Justices Alok Mathur and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, held that a special appeal is maintainable even against an interlocutory or procedural order if such order affects vital and valuable rights and may result in irreparable injustice.
The ruling came in Special Appeal No. 209 of 2025 filed by Rana Pratap and seven others challenging the recruitment process for posts currently held by them in the U.P. State Information Commission.
The appellants, all Junior Assistants/Clerks working since 2007 on ad hoc basis in the U.P. State Information Commission, challenged a procedural order dated 29.05.2025 passed by a Single Judge that merely allowed time to the respondents to file a counter affidavit but did not grant any interim relief to stay the recruitment process.
Holding that the special appeal was maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules in the given circumstances, the Court disposed of the appeal with directions to list the pending writ petition before the Single Judge on July 14, 2025, for early adjudication.
Background
The appellants had filed Writ-A No. 6293 of 2025 seeking a writ of mandamus to regularize their services from the date of initial appointment and to restrain the respondents from proceeding with recruitment under the advertisement dated 04.08.2023 issued by respondent no.7 (UPSSSC).
On 29.05.2025, the Single Judge did not grant interim relief but listed the matter for further hearing on 11.08.2025. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Division Bench through the present special appeal.
Appellants’ Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Anurag Shukla, submitted:
- That the appellants had been working on the same posts since 2007 and were awaiting regularization.
- That the Information Commission had already recommended their regularization through a letter dated 19.10.2020 sent to the State Government.
- That the State had not taken any decision on this proposal.
- That the denial of interim relief by the Single Judge allowed recruitment to proceed, potentially displacing the appellants and causing irreparable harm.
He relied on the Full Bench decision in Ashutosh Shrotriya v. Vice-Chancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University & Others, 2015 SCC OnLine All 8553, to argue that a special appeal is maintainable where an interlocutory order affects substantive rights and causes serious injustice.
Respondents’ Arguments
Learned Standing Counsel and counsel for the State Commission submitted:
- That the appeal was not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules since the impugned order was purely procedural.
- That a government order dated 22.04.2022 directed all departments to forward requisitions to UPSSSC for direct recruitment, thereby overriding the earlier proposal for regularization.
- That the Commission acted upon this directive and forwarded its requisition on 22.03.2023 including the posts held by the appellants.
The counsel for UPSSSC also informed the Court that the recruitment process, once initiated, usually takes two to three months but no fixed timeline could be guaranteed.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench, after examining the Full Bench ruling in Ashutosh Shrotriya, held:
“Where the Division Bench in a special appeal is of the view that the order of the learned single Judge is not just a procedural direction but would result in a grave detriment to substantive rights of an irreversible nature, the jurisdiction of the Court is wide enough to intervene at the behest of an aggrieved litigant.”
It noted that the recruitment examination for the disputed posts was scheduled for 29.06.2025, and if completed, the appellants could be removed from their current posts, thereby suffering irreversible harm. The Court thus concluded that the special appeal was maintainable.
Final Directions
While refraining from granting interim relief, the Court directed that the writ petition (Writ-A No. 6293 of 2025) be listed before the Single Judge on 14.07.2025.
It also recorded the submission of the State Commission’s counsel, who undertook to file a counter affidavit by 02.07.2025. The appellants were directed to file their rejoinder within three days thereafter.
The special appeal was accordingly disposed of.
