JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. V.R. Avula, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.

2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in Review I.A. No. 1 of 2019, by which the order dated 28.12.2016 passed in W.P. No. 3875 of 2003 was sought to be reviewed.

3. The writ petition was filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'appellants') to regularize the services of the writ petitioner in the post of Lecturer in Electronics with effect from 18.09.1987 or from 01.04.1991, with all consequential benefits.

4. On due consideration, by judgment dated 28.12.2016, the writ petition was allowed directing the appellants to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1991 i.e., the date on which the post was admitted to grant-in-aid, with all consequential benefits including service and monetary benefits. It was further directed that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

5. The appellants filed an application being I.A. No. 1 of 2019 seeking to review the order dated 28.12.2016. The said review application was dismissed on 24.03.2021 observing as follows :

"3. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, alleging wilful disobedience of the said order passed in the Writ Petition, filed Contempt Case No. 1926 of 2017 on 14.09.2017. Initially, this Court, on 08.11.2017, issued notice before admission in the Contempt Case. It is also important to note that vide Memo No. 1967/CE.A1/2017, dated 16.07.2018, the State Government directed the Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education to implement the order dated 27.12.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3875 of 2003 as was done in other similar cases of Sri. K.R.K. Raju and Sri. Sarveswara Rao, Lecturers of Ideal College, Kakinada and Sri. S.S.S. Durga Ganesh, Lecturer in Mrs. A.V.N. College, Visakhapatnam. The same was followed by another Memo No. 1967/CE.A1/2017, dated 15.12.2018. While the things being so, the petitioners herein, who are respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition, filed the present Review Petition on 01.10.2019.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner that in the absence of any valid reason for the delay in filing the review application, the review petition filed by the petitioners herein is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader strenuously submits that limitation period stipulated under the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing review application, cannot be made applicable to the review applications in the Writ Petitions. Even assuming that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 with regard to period of limitation for filing review application, cannot be made strictly applicable to the review applications in the Writ Petitions, the review applications are required to be filed within a reasonable time. In the instant case, though the order in the Writ Petition came to be passed on 28.12.2016 and though the Contempt Case was also filed on 14.09.2017, after lapse of approximately 3 years from the date of passing the order, the present review application is filed on 01.10.2019 without any valid and sufficient reason. Since this Court is not inclined to condone the unexplained delay, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the review application. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. No costs.

However, the petitioners herein/respondents in the Writ Petition, are granted six weeks' time to comply with the order passed in the Writ Petition."

6. Perusal of the above order goes to show that the learned single Judge did not propose to go into the merits of the review application as the same was filed approximately after three years from the date of