Board Of High School And Intermediate ... vs Km. Pratima Kumari Verma And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10785 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Board Of High School And Intermediate ... vs Km. Pratima Kumari Verma And Another on 18 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:168123-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 522 of 2025   
 
   Board of High School and Intermediate Education and 2 others    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Km. Pratima Kumari Verma and another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Meenakshi Singh (A.C.S.C.)   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
 Shrey Singh, Shailja Kant Tripathi   
 
     
 
 Chief Justice's Court
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE  
 
 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.      

1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 1763 of 2022 whereby learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 10.08.2021 and remitted the matter to the Regional Secretary, Regional Office of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Varanasi to decide the respondent's application for correction of the date of birth on merit in accordance with law.

2. Office has reported the appeal as barred by 105 days.

3. An application (C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 2 of 2025) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay has been filed along with an affidavit detailing the reasons for the delay.

4. In the affidavit, it is claimed that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but forced by circumstances. It is claimed that the copy of the order impugned dated 06.03.2025 was served on 28.03.2025 to the office of Additional Secretary, Secondary Education Board, Regional Office, Varanasi ('the Board') by the petitioner; by letter dated 02.05.2025, the Secretary of the Board made request to the Chief Standing Counsel to provide legal opinion which was given on 14.05.2025 i.e. to question the validity of order dated 06.03.2025. It is then claimed that on 29.05.2025, the Secretary of the Board sent a letter to the Joint Secretary seeking permission to file appeal which was granted on 10.06.2025 by the Special Secretary. The Chief Standing Counsel assigned the matter to the State Law Officer on 24.06.2025 for drafting the appeal and ultimately the same has been filed before this Court on 21.07.2025.

5. It is claimed that the appellants have acted diligently and in good faith and delay in filing the appeal is due to procedural requirements and complexities inherent in navigating the administrative channels within the Government.

6. Based on the said submissions, prayer has been made to condone the delay.

7. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the application. Submissions have been made that the affidavit clearly reflects negligence on part of the appellants in not filing the appeal in time and lame excuse has been given for the delay. It was submitted that no sufficient cause has been made out and therefore, the application deserves dismissal.

8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. It would be seen that the order impugned dated 06.03.2025 was passed in presence of the counsel for the State, however, the affidavit indicates that the copy of the order was received by the State when the same was served on 28.03.2025 by the respondent herein. When the State was duly represented, there was no occasion for the appellants to wait for a copy to be served by the respondent seeking compliance of the directions issued by the Court. It is the bounden duty of the counsel representing the State to send copy of the order passed by the Court along with his opinion.

10. It would be seen that after receipt of the copy of the order on 28.03.2025 on being sent by the respondent, despite the limitation for filing appeal being 30 days, the Secretary after passage of over one month on 02.05.2025 decided to seek legal opinion qua the order dated 06.03.2025 whereas, as observed hereinbefore, the order impugned should have been sent to the appellants along with the opinion by the counsel representing the State. Whereafter, the State has proceeded at its leisure in getting the opinion, sanction to file appeal, getting the appeal drafted and ultimately filing the same being sure that delay, irrespective of the reasons for the same, would be condoned by the Court.

11. The said attitude has been frowned upon by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. : (2012) 3 SCC 563 wherein, while dealing with the appeals filed on behalf of the State, by its agencies and government bodies, it was inter alia observed as under:

?29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.?

12. This judgment was followed in State of Kerala Vs. Akshaya Jewellers : Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2022, decided on 03.08.2023 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

13. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others: Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025, decided on 12.09.2025, after scanning the entire law on the subject, observed as under:

"262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.

263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law."

14. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically in the context of State appeals, we do not find that the State in the present case has been able to make out a sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

15. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. As a result thereof, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

September 18, 2025

AHA