Madras High Court
The Chairman vs E.Agalya on 1 March, 2022
CMP.No.2446 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.12942 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01.03.2022
Coram :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
CMP.No.2446 of 2022
in
W.A. SR.No.12942 of 2022
The Chairman,
Teacher Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai – 6. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.E.Agalya
2.The Director of Higher Secondary School,
Education, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Erode District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Erode District. ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Clause 15 of the Letter
Patent praying to condone the delay of 2955 days in filing the above writ appeal
against the order dated 05.12.2013 made in W.P.No.33030 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
CMP.No.2446 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.12942 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.KV.Sanjeevkumar
Special Govt. Pleader
For Respondent 1 : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
For Respondents : No appearance
2 to 4
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of
2955 days in filing the above writ appeal against the order dated 05.12.2013
made in W.P.No.33030 of 2013.
2. The petitioner herein on earlier occasion, had filed W.A.No.2503 of
2021 dated 04.10.2021, challenging the order made in Rev.Appl.No.304 of
2014, in which one of us (SVNJ), while dismissing the said writ appeal held as
follows:
".... The original order has not been challenged, as the
learned single Judge has confirmed the original order in the
writ petition in W.P. No.33030 of 2013 dated 05.12.2013.
2. In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere
with the order. This Court makes it very clear that, if the
original order is interfered with, automatically Review order
will go, as the Review has not been filed against the modified
order, but against the confirmed order in writ petition. It is
open to the appellant to challenge the original order and this
Court will consider the same, when it is taken up for hearing.
3. In view of the same, the writ appeal is dismissed...."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.2446 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.12942 of 2022
3. Per Contra Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent herein contended that there was a delay of 2 years in filing the
Review Application and that almost a decade has gone by from the date of the
order made in W.P.No.33030 of 2013. He further contended that sufficient
reasons have not been adduced in support of condonation of delay and therefore
this CMP is liable to be dismissed.
4. By placing reliance on the same, it is submitted by Mr.Neelakandan,
learned counsel for the petitioner herein that unless candidates clear the
Teacher Eligibility Test(TET), they will not be entitled to any claim in respect of
appointment etc.,
5. Heard both sides.
6. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. However, it is
made clear that if similarly placed candidates approach this Court, we will not
grant any relief to them as their claim would be barred by limitation. The issue
involved in this case had already been settled and we do not want to unsettle the
issue, which will amount to opening the pandora box.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.2446 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.12942 of 2022
7. It is apposite to point out that even if the delay is enormous, if there is
any justifiable ground, the delay has to be condoned. Assuming that, the delay
is very small and the reasons are not germane, the Court cannot condone the
same. In a similar circumstance, a Division Bench of this Court (SVNJ & MVJ),
by an order dated 15.02.2018, in the case of M/s.Ruskim Sea Foods Limited
vs. M/s.Evergreen Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., reported in MANU/TN/0876/2018,
which were filed to condone the delay of 765 days in preferring the Appeal,
dismissed the said Petitions. Relevant Paragraph of the said decision is
extracted hereunder:
“32. Ordinarily, the 'Condonation of Delay' is a matter of
discretion to be exercised by the Concerned Court. Also, it is true
that the length and breadth of delay is not relevant, but the
acceptance of explanation can only be a relevant criterion for the
concerned Court to deal with / condone the aspect of 'Condonation
of Delay'. However, in this regard, the Petitioner / concerned
litigant is to offer / ascribe sufficient reasons or project sufficient
cause or good cause to condone the delay with a view to enable the
Concerned Court to take a liberal view with a view to secure the
ends of justice.
8. While dealing with yet another similar issue of condoning a huge delay,
a Division Bench of this Court, has observed as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.2446 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.12942 of 2022
“4. The Court, in exercising discretion, particularly in
these types of Petitions, has to see the conduct, behaviour and
attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence. The
above factors are relevant to be taken into consideration as the
fundamental principle is that Courts are required to weigh the
scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said
principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal
approach. There is an increasing tendency to perceive delay even
in a non-serious matter. Hence, the delay due to nonchalant
attitude should be curbed at the initial stage itself.
5 . Considering the above aspects and further the Affidavit
filed for condoning the delay, did not contain any details as to
how the delay of 1860 days had occurred and that no plausible
and proper explanation was assigned for each and every day's
delay, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the discretion
cannot be exercised for condonation of the delay. Accordingly,
the Miscellaneous Petition seeking condonation of 1860 days
delay in preferring the Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the
Writ Appeal also stands dismissed.”
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Majji
Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs Reddy Sridevi and others, reported in
MANU/SC/1269/2021, has held as follows:
“7.3 In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is
observed as under:-
“The laws of limitation are founded on public policy.
Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as “statutes of
peace”. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation
creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is
essential for public order. The principle is based on the
maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, that is, the
interest of the State requires that there should be end to
litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a means
to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury,
quickening diligence and preventing oppression. The object
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.2446 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.12942 of 2022
for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy
fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general
welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort
to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly.
Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to
the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.” 7.4 In
the case of Basawaraj (supra), it is observed and held by this
Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be
exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of
each case. It is further observed that the expression
“sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if
negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the
party. It is further observed that even though limitation may
harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with
all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further
observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack
of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any
justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing
conditions. It is observed that each application for
condonation of delay has to be decided within the
framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed
that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause
is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount
to violation of statutory principles and showing utter
disregard to legislature. 7.5 In the case of Pundlik Jalam
Patil (supra), it is observed by this Court that the court
cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of
equity. Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are
vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights”.
8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the
averments in the application for condonation of delay, we are of
the opinion that as such no explanation much less a sufficient or a
satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondent Nos.1 and
2 herein – appellants before the High Court for condonation of
huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal. The
High Court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to
condone such a huge delay. The High Court has not exercised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the discretion judiciously. The reasoning given by the High
CMP.No.2446 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.12942 of 2022
Court while condoning huge delay of 1011 days is not germane.
Therefore, the High Court has erred in condoning the huge
delay of 1011 days in preferring the appeal by respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein – original defendants. Impugned order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on law as well
as on facts.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal is Allowed. The impugned order dated 16.09.2021
passed by the High Court condoning the delay of 1011 days in
preferring the Second Appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein is
hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, Second Appeal
No.331 of 2021 preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein
stands dismissed on the ground of delay. The present Appeal is
accordingly Allowed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs."
10. For all the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to condone the
delay. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Writ Appeal in SR stage stands rejected. No costs.
(S.V.N., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
01.03.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking (or) Non-speaking Order
smn/mka
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP.No.2446 of 2022
in
W.A.SR.No.12942 of 2022
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
smn/mka
To:
1.The Chairman,Teacher Recruitment Board,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Director of Higher Secondary School,
Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Erode District.
4.The District Educational Officer, Erode District.
CMP.No.2446 of 2022
in
W.A. SR.No.12942 of 2022
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
