Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Territory Of J&Jk & Ors vs Bimla Devi & Ors on 4 December, 2021
Sr. No. 16
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 18/2020
CM Nos. 494/2020 & 495/2020
Union Territory of J&JK & ors. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
Vs
Bimla Devi & ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: None.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
ORDER
04.12.2021
(OPEN COURT)
Per: Thakur-J
1. The applicants have filed the application seeking condonation of delay
of 1219 days' in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal against the
judgment and order dated 22.7.2016.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition were
that the writ petitioner had applied for engagement as an ReT Teacher
somewhere in the year 2002. As per the advertisement, the petitioner
ought not to have been more than 35 years of age by the relevant cut-
off date. The official respondents, however, rejected the application
form of the petitioner, holding that she was 36 years and 10 months
old and, therefore, did not qualify the age criteria. In the petition,
before the writ court, the petitioner relied upon a Notice issued by the
Director School Education wherein following the decision of the Govt. to
relax the age bar from 35 years to 37 years in General Category, 37 to
39 years in Handicapped Category and from 38 to 40 years in case of
SC/ST, the Director School Education, Jammu had ordered re-casting of
the entire select panels prepared for engagement as ReT.
3. The petitioner being in the open merit category had claimed the benefit
of the aforesaid Notice and stated that she was eligible to be
considered inasmuch as the age bar had been taken to 37 years from
35 years in the open merit category.
4. A perusal of the Notice issued by the Director School Education would
show that the panels earlier prepared had to be re-cast and fresh
applications had to be invited from the candidates, who had become
eligible for appointment due to the relaxation of age bar on 1.1.2003,
therefore, all new eligible candidates were also to be considered in the
process of selection.
5. Relying upon the Notice of the Director School Education, the Writ
Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the
respondents to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner and
decide whether she would have been selected pursuant to
Advertisement Notice dated 11.12.2002 had her candidature not been
rejected and in case, it was found that she would have been selected
and appointed at this stage, to appoint her against an available
vacancy as on today or accruing hereafter.
6. It appears that the case of the petitioner was considered by the
appellants but rejected, which order of consideration, was not accepted
by the court during the contempt proceedings initiated in the meantime
by the petitioner-respondent No. 1. It is on account of the pendency of
the contempt proceedings that now an effort has been made to
challenge the judgment and order passed as early as in July 2016 with
a view to overcome the difficulty being faced by the official respondents
before the court hearing the contempt petition.
7. With a view to explain 1219 days' delay, a better affidavit has been
filed pursuant to the directions issued by this court in which the
appellants have tried to explain as to why it was thought necessary to
file the appeal. The spirit behind such a decision is stated to be a
misunderstanding of the judgment and order passed by the court as 'a
simple order of consideration'.
8. On a perusal of the affidavit filed by the appellants, it appears that the
decision to file an appeal has been taken only because the order of
consideration passed by the appellants was not being accepted by the
court exercising contempt jurisdiction. In our opinion, if the appeal had
to be preferred against the judgment and order passed by the writ
court then the Govt., which has the advantage of expert opinions from
their law officers could have very easily taken a decision to challenge
the said judgment and order well within the time prescribed at the
very initial stage instead of resorting to filing of an appeal justifying the
order of consideration before the court exercising the contempt
jurisdiction.
9. The application filed by the applicants/appellants lacks in material
particulars and does not at all justify the condonation of delay, which is
sought in the present case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on a
judgement of the Apex Court in "Post Master General and others Vs
Living Media India Limited & another" (2012) 3 SCC 563,
wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 29 held thus:-
"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
bona fide 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 government
departments. The law shelters everyone under the
same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of
a few."
10. Following the ratio of the aforementioned judgment, since the
applicants/appellants have failed to explain the delay satisfactorily, we
are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be
condoned. The condonation application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Consequently, the accompanying appeal also stands dismissed.
(Mohan Lal ) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu
04.12.2021
Naresh
