The court held that delays in appeals must be supported by sufficient cause and ruled appointments based on forgery are void ab initio, negating the need for a departmental inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

Re : I.A. No. 01 of 2023

The learned Advocate General presses I.A. No. 01 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay of one year and four months in preferring this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6674 of 2009 dated 16.12.2021.

2. The reasons assigned in the application is that some time was taken in obtaining legal opinion, whereafter the issues were considered threadbare and was endorsed to a panel of Advocates for necessary drafting. The Department of Law received the draft, but because of some of the lackadaisical employees of the department, the same could not be sent on time to the appropriate authority, which has resulted in delay.

3. Apart from that, the learned Advocate General has pointed out that huge number of appointments were made against the Rules and in many cases, the credentials of the candidates were found to be forged and fabricated.

4. Several writ petitions were filed against the order of termination of such employees.

5. A Five Member Committee also was constituted to look into such irregular/illegal appointments and the matter at many stages travelled to Supreme Court. It was also a humongous task, it has been urged on behalf of the State, to identify all such employees and the process was time taking.

6. Contesting the aforenoted grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the State is supposed to explain the sufficient cause and administrative lethargy has been held to be no sufficient cause.

7. In Majji Sannemma vs. Reddy Sridevi and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1260, the Supreme Court has held that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, but it has to be applied with all its rigours.

8. Similar grounds have weighed with the Supreme Court in Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 92; Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81; Union of India and Anr. vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His Lr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489.

9. In all these judgments, it has been held that it matters not whether a litigant is a private party or a State when it comes to condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. The length of delay is also a relevant matter which the Court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not.

10. It has further been argued that in State of M.P. vs. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612, the delay of 5 years, 10 months and 16 days in preferring a second appeal was not condoned by the jurisdictional High Court and the same was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

11. In State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Deo Kumar Singh and Ors., (2022) 16 SCC 483, it has clearly been held that condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of government lethargy. (also refer to H. Guruswamy and Ors. vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54).

12. After having considered the submission on behalf of the parties and also taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 Live Law (SC) 339, holding that there can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.

13. In the present case, the learned Single Judge vide his judgment has not taken into account the various decisions of the Supreme Court in the same set of facts with regard to illegal appointments in the Health Department of the State of Bihar and set aside the termination order on the sole ground that the respondent was not subjected to a detailed procedure for terminating his service. This has resulted in a dichotomous judgment in favour of the respondent, when many such similarly situated employees were terminated, whose termination were upheld by the Supreme Court.

14. We are conscious o