Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/1914/2025 on 16 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010125212025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1914/2025
In WA No.5647/2025 (Filing Number)
1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
2: THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.
3: THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.
4: THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
DHUBRI ASSAM.
5: THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY OFFICER AMGOMNI
GOLAKGANJ DHUBRI ASSAM
-VERSUS -
1.NABANITA MANDAL AND 2 ORS.
W/O. SRI. DIPAK KUMAR MANDAL,
R/O. KAIMARI PART-II, P/O. KAIMARI,
P/S. GOLAKGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783335.
2:THE HEADMASTER M.E. MADRASSA ASSAM
R/O. VILL.- KAIMARI PART-II
P/O.KAIMARI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783335.
3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
GOVT. OF ASSAM.
ASSAM SECRETRIAT C.M. BLOCK DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006
Page No.# 2/5
For the Applicants/Appellants : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Standing Counsel, Education
(Elementary) Department.
For the Respondents : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. N.
Sarma, Advocate for respondent No.1.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
16.09.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 431 days in
preferring the connected appeal against the judgment dated 02.02.2024 passed
by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6013/2023.
We have heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned Advocate for the applicants
and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. N. Sarma,
learned Advocate for the respondent No.1.
From the pleadings in the application, it appears that the judgment
impugned was delivered on 02.02.2024 but there was some delay in the
Education Department in taking a decision whether to file appeal or review
against the said order.
The Government in the Education Department had requested the
Standing Counsel to file appeal/review but unfortunately no steps were taken.
Thereafter, again, though, after a lapse of 10(ten) months, the Director of
Elementary Education was asked to come for a discussion in connection with the
decision to challenge the impugned judgment.
All these took time.
Page No.# 3/5
The Directorate had submitted a detailed report on 21.01.2025 to the
Government regarding the challenge to the impugned judgment. Thereafter, the
Directorate was further asked to furnish the detailed report regarding the
grounds of appeal/review and related documents and to hand it over to the
Senior Standing Counsel. In compliance of the afore-noted direction, the appeal
ultimately was filed.
This resulted in a delay of 431 days from the date of passing of the
impugned order in the writ petition.
Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No.1,
however, has submitted that this explanation is not worth accepting for the
reason that it took almost a year for the applicants to file requisition for
obtaining the certified copy of the order. It is submitted that the explanation of
the Senior Standing Counsel and the Directorate of Education sitting tight over
the matter for more than a year, is not acceptable at all.
He has further referred to various case laws where it has been held that
delay can be condoned only if sufficient cause is shown.
After having gone through the application seeking condonation of delay,
we have found that though the delay is inordinate but the issue
involved/arguability of the appeal, would assume importance.
By the impugned order, the services of the respondent No.1 has been
regularized from a retrospective date which, the applicants argue, was not
correct for the reason that the post of Hindi Teacher in the concerned School
was created only in 2014 for the purposes of regularizing the services of the
respondent No.1 and the services of the respondent No.1 was ultimately
regularized from a particular date in the year 2015.
Page No.# 4/5
We are conscious of the fact that the length of delay in preferring an
appeal is immaterial. What is important is the acceptability of the explanation.
At the same time, if the condonation of delay is refused, meritorious matter
would be thwarted and thrown to the winds at the threshold.
Where justice demands, liberal approach in condoning the delay could
be adopted but keeping in mind that the laws on limitation cannot be ignored or
rendered meaningless. A pragmatic approach has to be adopted especially if the
delay is on account of lackadaisical approach of the Government officials, but
only for the reason that substantive justice ought to prevail over technicalities.
Though the explanation offered by the applicants does not appear to be
readily acceptable, but particularized chronology of events and the explanation
for the long interstices have been attempted to be given, and this makes up for
the case of the applicants.
We do reckon that State ought not to be treated more indulgently than
a private party but public interest is paramount, which is being considered here.
The explanation offered on behalf of the applicants has some semblance
of credibility though it falls slightly short of the standard of such explanation
which would be acceptable.
As noted above, we are also inclined to condone the delay for the
reason that the order impugned in the connected appeal prima facie is
challengeable.
For the reasons afore-noted, we condone the delay and allow this
application.
The Interlocutory Application stands disposed off.
Page No.# 5/5
The Registry is directed to process the appeal and list it on 07.11.2025
under the appropriate heading.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
