# Asif v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 412 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2008-04-22 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 8688 of 2008 - **Bench:** Amar Saran - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/asif-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41218 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India Art. 226-Service Law-Promotion-once an employee transferred at the place of his choiceaccepted zero place in seniority list-can not claim promotion on the basis of length of service-where the criteria for promotion is seniority cum suitability. Held: Para 12 ## Text 412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008 does not apply to the case of the petitioner. 10. A perusal of the Act shows that it has been legislated for the benefit of handicapped dependents of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen, who apply in Public Services. It does not apply in the field of education wherein the other Government Order dated 5.5.1987 is applicable. 11. Since the petitioner is neither a handicapped person nor she is appearing in any examination held by the Public Service Commission. She cannot get the benefit of Act No. 4/1993. 12. In the circumstances, the case of the petitioner is being governed by the Government Order dated 5th May, 1987, which provides for grant of 15% marks as weightage. She is not entitled to 2% reservation under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation For Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom fighters and Ex-servicemen) Act 1993 (U.P. Act no. 4 of 1993). 13. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed, as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 8688 of 2008 Asif ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. and another ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure Section 205Exumption from personal appearanceaccused applicant working at Saudi Arbiya-statements of complainant recorded-charge sheet framedappearance of accused essential-No illegality in rejection of application seeking exemption from personal appearance shown-Trail court to conclude Trail within time bound period. Held: Para 2 This application has been filed for challenging an order dated 17.11.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur in case No. 4516 of 2006 whereby the applicant's application for exemption of his attendance under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. Case law discussed: 1995(2) JIC 1915 (All), 1995(2) JIC 1845 (All) (Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2 All] Asif V. State of U.P. and another 413 2. This application has been filed for challenging an order dated 17.11.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur in case No. 4516 of 2006 whereby the applicant's application for exemption of his attendance under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. 3. In the said order, it has been observed by the trial judge that the applicant was not appearing as he was in Saudi Arabia and when non-bailable warrant was issued, he appeared and thereafter non-bailable warrant was recalled and he was granted bail. The statement of the complainant under section 244 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and now the charge has to be framed, in which the appearance of the accused is essential. The visa of the applicant was only up to 11.3.2008 and now the said date has expired. Although learned counsel for the applicant states orally that Visa has been extended, but no proof has been filed in support thereof. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention of the two decisions of learned Single Judge of this Court in Laxmi Narain Agarwal and another Vs. State and another, 1995(2) JIC 1915 (All) and Sardar Jaspal Singh Vs. State and others, 1995(2) JIC 1845 (All) for the proposition that when the accused resides at a long distance, his appearance should be exempted and he should be allowed to appear through counsel, but those decisions were not at the stage when the charge was to be framed, but were related to an earlier stage. 5. In this view of the matter, I think that the learned Magistrate has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order. 6. However, as the applicant's work is involved, which he claims to be doing in Saudi Arabia, as far as possible the trial court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order provided the applicant cooperates with the trial and there is no legal impediment. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12250 of 2008 Samar Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State Public Services Tribunal and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ramendra Asthana Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India Art. 226-Service Law-Promotion-once an employee transferred at the place of his choiceaccepted zero place in seniority list-can not claim promotion on the basis of length of service-where the criteria for promotion is seniority cum suitability. Held: Para 12