[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Singareni Collieries Company Limited vs Md.Amzad on 9 April, 2026

         IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                         AT HYDERABAD
     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                              AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

                         I.A.No.1 of 2025
                              in/and
                   WRIT APPEAL No.1525 of 2025
                           DATE: 09.04.2026
Between:
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director
and 2 others
                                                            ....Appellants
                                    And
Md Amzad                                                   ....Respondent
                               JUDGMENT

Heard Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

Singareni Collieries Company Limited for appellants and Sri B.Balaji,

learned counsel representing Sri M.Goutham Kumar, learned

counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.1 of 2025, is filed by

the appellants seeking condonation of delay of 236 days in preferring

the accompanying writ appeal. The said writ appeal is directed

against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.45687 of 2018, whereby the writ petition came to be

allowed and the appellants were directed to reconsider the

respondent's (writ petitioner) case for appointment to the post of

Motor Mechanic Trainee Category-I under Notification No.2 of 2015.

3. Before entering upon the merits of the Writ Appeal, it becomes

necessary to examine the issue of limitation, as the appeal is

presented with a delay of 236 days. Such delay, being prima facie

significant, calls for a careful consideration and cannot be treated as

a matter of routine.

Factual matrix (in brief)

4. The respondent pursuant to Employment Notification No.2 of

2015 issued by the appellant-Company applied for the post of Motor

Mechanic Trainee, Category-I (External). A written test was

conducted on 18.12.2016, in which the respondent secured 48.88

marks. Due to certain litigations filed by ineligible candidates, the

finalization of the selection list was delayed. Consequently, this

Court directed the appellant-Company to declare the results.

Accordingly, a provisional selection list was displayed on 05.06.2017.

5. For the posts under the BC-'B' category, three candidates were

selected based on merit. The details of the selected candidates are

extracted hereunder:

S.No   Hall Ticket     Name                               Marks      Caste

10     6300047         Balram Samala, Karimnagar          52.22      B.C.B

24     6300108         Aldandi Nageraju, Warangal         50.00      B.C.B

35     6300131         Shareef SK, Warangal               50.00      B.C.B

6. The 3rd selected candidate one Shareef SK, did not join the

post. The respondent, being the next meritorious candidate in the

BC-'B' category with 48.88 marks, staked a claim to the unfilled

vacancy. The respondent submitted a representation to the

appellants on 13.08.2018, requesting that his candidature be

considered for the said vacant post. When the respondent's

representation was not acted upon, the respondent filed W.P. No.

35078 of 2018 before this Court, which was disposed of by an order

dated 01.10.2018, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court

directed the appellants to consider the representation dated

13.08.2018. In compliance with the order dated 01.10.2018, the 3rd

appellant passed a speaking order on 24.11.2018

(Ref.No.CRP/PER/R/05/2018/1086), rejecting the respondent's

candidature.

7. The sole ground for rejection, as stated in the speaking order,

was that the respondent's representation was submitted after the

expiry of the panel validity period. As per the appellants, the

merit/selection list was valid for a period of one year, i.e., from

10.06.2017 to 09.06.2018, whereas the respondent's representation

was made on 13.08.2018, nearly two months after the panel had

lapsed. Aggrieved by the speaking order dated 24.11.2018, the

respondent filed W.P.No.45687 of 2018 seeking a direction to set

aside the said order and to consider his case for appointment.

8. The Learned Single Judge, by an order dated 18.03.2025,

allowed the writ petition and held that the appellants had failed to

consider the respondent's candidature despite him being the next

meritorious candidate and a vacancy having arisen. The learned

Single Judge observed that the inaction of the appellants during the

validity period of the merit list caused procedural unfairness.

9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants-Company has

preferred the present writ appeal along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking

condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

10. Learned counsel for the appellants, while seeking condonation

of delay of 236 days in filing the writ appeal arising out of the order

dated 18.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.45687 of 2018, advanced the

following submissions:

i) That the delay involved is minimal, bona fide and neither

intentional nor willful. It is stated that the order under appeal,

dated 18.03.2025, was received by the appellants on

23.04.2025. Thereafter, since the appellants are a Public

Sector Undertaking, the matter had to be processed at various

administrative levels and approval of the competent authority

was required before a decision could be taken to prefer the

appeal.

ii) That the delay occurred only on account of the time consumed

in completion of the internal administrative process. The

appellants were required to obtain approval from the

competent authority before filing the appeal and such

procedural requirements in a large Government undertaking

necessarily consume some time and that the delay cannot be

attributed to any deliberate inaction, negligence or want of

bona fides on the part of the appellants.

iii) That condonation of such a short delay would not cause any

prejudice whatsoever to the respondent. On the contrary,

refusal to condone the delay would deprive the appellants of an

opportunity to prosecute the appeal on merits and would

result in serious prejudice to them.

iv) It is settled law that where the delay is minimal and

satisfactorily explained, the Courts ought to adopt a liberal and

pragmatic approach so as to advance justice rather than defeat

it on technical grounds. That the appellants have a prima facie

arguable case on merits, inasmuch as the respondent had

submitted his representation after expiry of the one-year

validity period of the merit list, i.e., from 10.06.2017 to

09.06.2018, and the speaking order impugned in the writ

petition was passed strictly in accordance with the applicable

Recruitment Rules.

Submissions on behalf of respondent

11. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the application for

condonation of delay and advanced the following submissions:

i) That the explanation offered by the appellants is vague, general

and wholly insufficient as the appellants have merely

attributed the delay to "administrative reasons" and the

requirement of obtaining approval from the competent

authority, without furnishing any specific particulars, dates or

details as to the movement of the file or the stages at which the

matter was delayed. It is urged that such a bald and omnibus

explanation does not satisfy the requirement of establishing

"sufficient cause".

ii) That the appellants have exhibited lack of due diligence.

Though the impugned order was passed on 18.03.2025 and is

stated to have been received on 23.04.2025, the appeal has

been presented only on 29.12.2025. The substantial

intervening period remains unexplained.

iii) That condonation of delay would seriously prejudice the

respondent as the learned Single Judge has granted relief in

favour of the respondent by directing reconsideration of his

case, and a valuable right has accrued in his favour.

Interference at this stage, by condoning the delay, would

unsettle the said relief and cause manifest injustice to the

respondent, who has been pursuing his claim for a

considerable period.

iv) That the learned Single Judge rightly appreciated the facts,

noting that one of the selected BC-'B' candidates did not join

and the respondent, being the next meritorious candidate, was

entitled to consideration. It is contended that the appellants

cannot take advantage of delays in the selection process not

attributable to the respondent. It is further submitted that the

inaction of the appellants during the validity period of the

merit list (10.06.2017 to 09.06.2018), despite being aware of

the vacancy, amounts to procedural unfairness and cannot

defeat the respondent's claim.

v) That the respondent acted diligently by making a

representation and pursuing legal remedies without delay. The

rejection of his claim on the ground of expiry of the panel

period is stated to be arbitrary and hyper-technical,

particularly in view of the appellants' own inaction.

12. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and

perused the material on record.

Consideration by this Court

13. The fundamental question that falls for consideration before

this Court is whether the appellants have made out any "sufficient

cause" for condoning the inordinate delay of 236 days in preferring

the present writ appeal against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in

W.P.No.15687 of 2018.

14. It is trite that though Courts are inclined to adopt a liberal and

pragmatic approach in matters of condonation of delay, such

discretion is not excessive. The party seeking condonation must

demonstrate that the delay was neither intentional nor due to

negligence, and must furnish a reasonable, cogent and satisfactory

explanation covering the entire period of delay. The expression

"sufficient cause" cannot be construed in a routine or mechanical

manner.

15. On a careful consideration of the material on record, we are of

the considered view that the explanation offered by the appellants

falls short of the legal requirement of "sufficient cause", for the

following reasons:

i) The explanation offered by the appellants is vague, general and

bereft of material particulars, as it has merely averred that the

impugned order was received on 23.04.2025 and that approval

from the competent authority was required, resulting in delay

due to "administrative reasons." However, no details are

furnished as to when the file was placed before the competent

authority, the stages through which it moved, the time taken

at each stage, or the circumstances which occasioned the

delay between 23.04.2025 and 29.12.2025. In the absence of

such particulars, the explanation remains a bald assertion and

does not satisfy the requirement of establishing "sufficient

cause."

ii) The conduct of the appellants reflects lack of due diligence as

the order under appeal was passed on 18.03.2025 and, even

accepting that it was received on 23.04.2025, the appeal has

been filed only on 29.12.2025, after a lapse of more than eight

months. The intervening period remains wholly unexplained,

which cannot be countenanced.

iii) The appellants, being a Government Company, cannot claim

any special indulgence. It is well settled that public sector

undertakings are expected to act with due promptitude and

cannot rely on routine administrative procedures as a ground

for condonation of delay, in the absence of a proper and

satisfactory explanation supported by particulars. As held by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General v. Living

Media India Ltd. 1, delays attributed merely to impersonal

(2012) 3 SCC 563

administrative procedures, movement of files, or bureaucratic

processes cannot be accepted as sufficient cause. In the

absence of a reasonable, satisfactory, and bona fide

explanation for the delay, the routine plea of procedural red

tape or pendency of files for prolonged periods does not merit

acceptance.

iv) The respondent has been pursuing his claim for appointment

since the year 2015. The learned Single Judge, upon

consideration of the material on record, has granted relief in

his favour. A valuable right has thus accrued to the

respondent. Entertaining the appeal at this belated stage

would unsettle the said relief and cause prejudice to the

respondent, who has already endured prolonged uncertainty in

relation to his employment.