The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a purely procedural order passed during the hearing of a writ petition cannot be treated as a "judgment" for the purpose of filing a special appeal. The Division Bench dismissed an appeal filed by candidates challenging an interim order in the Assistant Prosecution Officer (APO) Recruitment 2025 dispute, holding that the Single Judge had merely granted time for filing replies and had not decided any substantive rights.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a writ petition challenging the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission's Office Memorandum dated January 9, 2020, and the result of the APO Preliminary Examination 2025 declared on April 30, 2026. The appellants argued that reserved category candidates who secured marks above the general category cut-off should first be shifted to the unreserved category before preparing the final list of candidates qualifying for the main examination.
The Single Judge, however, granted the respondents three weeks to file their counter affidavits and directed that the request for interim relief would be considered after the pleadings were completed. Aggrieved by this, the candidates approached the Division Bench, contending that the delay would prevent them from appearing in the main examination scheduled between June 28 and June 30, 2026.
Court's Observation
The Division Bench observed that the order under challenge did not decide any legal issue or determine the rights of the parties. Instead, it merely regulated the procedure of the case by allowing pleadings to be completed.
The bench observed,
"The order merely grants opportunity to the respondents to place their stand on record and postpones consideration of interim relief until pleadings are complete."
The Court rejected the argument that postponing consideration of interim relief automatically amounted to refusing such relief. It noted that the appellants had not produced material to establish that, even if their interpretation of the reservation law was accepted, they would necessarily qualify for the main examination.
The Bench also pointed out that the interim relief sought was substantially the same as the final relief claimed in the writ petition. Granting such relief at an interim stage would effectively decide the entire dispute before the case was fully heard.
Reservation Issue Left Open
While refraining from expressing a final opinion on the reservation dispute, the Court made a prima facie observation that Section 3(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 appears to apply at the stage of final selection rather than during a preliminary screening examination.
The Bench further noted that the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the appellants dealt with different factual and statutory frameworks and did not automatically govern the present recruitment process. It also recorded that candidates who could be affected by any reworking of the examination result had not been made parties to the proceedings.
Decision
Concluding that the Single Judge's order was purely interlocutory and procedural, the Division Bench held that it did not possess the characteristics of a "judgment" capable of being challenged under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
The bench held,
"The order dated 18.06.2026 is purely interlocutory and procedural in nature. It neither adjudicates any substantive right nor possesses the attributes of a judgment amenable to appellate scrutiny."
Accordingly, the Special Appeal was dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Pankaj Verma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Special Appeal No. 763 of 2026
Judge: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar
Decision Date: June 24, 2026
