JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

1. This application has been preferred at the instance of the State of West Bengal and its functionaries seeking condonation of a delay of 468 days in filing the proposed appeal, with a view to assail the judgment and order dated 17th January, 2014 passed in W.P. No. 30191 (W) of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no. 2 therein to approve the petitioner’s appointment as an organising staff from such date as would enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits, within the time stipulated therein, keeping in mind that the petitioner had approached this Court for the first time in the year 1995.

2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for effective adjudication of the present application are that, in the fourth round of litigation, the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1, namely Madan Mohan Patra (hereinafter referred to as Madan), preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 30191 (W) of 2008, challenging the legality of the order dated 5th November, 2008 issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal, whereby the petitioner’s prayer for regularisation as an organising Assistant Teacher in the language group of Bamanbarh Gopal Chanda Adarsha Vidyapith (hereinafter referred to as the school) was rejected.

3. Madan claimed to have joined the school as an organising Assistant Teacher in the language group in the year 1984, at a time when the school was recognised up to Class II as a Junior High School. In 1992, the District Level Inspection Team (DLIT) inspected the school; however, the concerned authorities approved five posts of teaching staff, even though the school was then imparting education up to Class VIII. Subsequently, the concerned District Inspector of Schools approved the appointments of three organising teaching staff and one non-teaching staff, without considering the petitioner’s case for approval of his appointment. Aggrieved thereby, Madan was constrained to prefer a writ petition being W.P. No. 2398 (W) of 1997, which was disposed of with a direction upon the Director of School Education to consider his prayer in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the Director of School Education rejected the petitioner’s prayer by passing a reasoned order.

4. In the second round of litigation, the petitioner preferred another writ petition challenging the order passed by the Director of School Education. On that occasion as well, the said order was set aside and the issue was once again relegated to the Director for fresh consideration. However, even thereafter, the petitioner’s prayer met with the same fate. In the third round of litigation, the petitioner again assailed the decision of the Director refusing to approve his appointment by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 9347 of 2003. Once again, the order of the Director was set aside with a direction to reconsider the petitioner’s prayer. Notwithstanding such directions, the Director of SchoolEducation, by an order dated 5th November, 2008, rejected the petitioner’s prayer for approval of his appointment as an organising Assistant Teacher in the language group of the school. The said order dated 5th November, 2008 was ultimately challenged in the fourth round of litigation by filing W.P. No. 30191 (W) of 2008.

5. As previously noted, by an order dated 17th January, 2014, which is sought to be impugned in the instant proposed appeal, W.P. No. 30191 (W) of 2008 was disposed of with a direction upon the concerned authorities to approve the petitioner’s appointment from such date as would enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of retiral benefits, including pension.

6. As pointed out in the report of the Additional Stamp Reporter, there is a delay of 468 days in preferring the proposed appeal. In order to explain such delay, it has been stated in the application for condonation of delay (hereinafter