The judgment established the importance of applying the law of limitation with rigor and highlighted that courts cannot grant exemption from limitation on equitable considerations or hardship.

1. Heard Mr. A.M. Magrey, Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the applicants as well as Mr. H.I. Hussain, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 65 days in preferring the related letters patent appeal.

3. In order to explain the above mentioned delay, the following explanations have been put forward in this condonation petition:

"1/ That the above titled LPA is being instituted before this Hon’ble court against judgment and order dated 27.08.2009. The matter involves important questions, which requires adjudication before this Hon’ble Court. The writ petitioner has been ordered to be promoted to the post of Associate Professor against which he was not eligible at the relevant point of time. The appellants have a strong case on merits in the LP And are sure to succeed in it.

2/ That there is some delay in filing of LPA against above mentioned judgment after deducting sixty days limitation period and the period taken by the registry in issuance of the judgment, but the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occasioned due to the reason beyond control. As soon as the judgment was received in the Institute, same was examined and the matter had to pass through many tables as per procedure and administrative niceties, due to which a considerable time got consumed.

3/ that in case delay is not condoned, a meritorious case will be thrown out of the court. In that eventuality, serious prejudice will be caused to the interests of the appellants.

4/ In the premises, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept this application for condonation of delay and the LPA may be entertained and appropriate orders passed; same shall meet the ends of justice."

4. It is stated at the Bar by Mr. Magrey, learned Sr. AAG, supporting the above contentions, to be the satisfactory explanation that since it is a Government lis, some leniency needs to be shown because from the date of judgment till the date of taking final decision for preferring the appeal, a lengthy official process is required to be followed in which the matter has to move from table to table. In this case as well, when the matter has been processed for filing the appeal, the delay in question has occurred. Accordingly, it is submitted that the delay in question may be condoned.

5. It is established that law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour prescribed by the Statute. Although Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act Smvt. 1995 (for short `the Act’) provides for extension of the period of limitation in certain cases, the applicant or appellant seeking such extension under the said provision of law is required to satisfy the Court that he has "sufficient cause" for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period as is prescribed by law.

6. Under the concept of welfare State, in order to promote social justice, it is the bounden duty of the State to protect and preserve public interest and public fund. Since public exchequer is incurring heavy expenses on different departments of the State and its instrumentalities, it is incumbent upon them to be fast and prompt in discharging their duties and in carrying their responsibilities with due diligence. If there is a good case on merit and the application for condonation of delay, unintentional or otherwise, filed by the State is not allowed, it is certain that damage will be caused to the public interest and public fund. Unfortunately, the officers of the State and its instrumentalities carry an impression that with each and every case, the delay caused in filing an appeal is bound to be condoned, taking it for granted on the basis of a few decisions where the delay has been condoned considering the facts of those cases where sufficient causes were shown and proved.

7. In the case P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Apex Court,