1. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in preferring L.P.A. No. 579 of 2023.

2. In this application, the appellant has stated as under:

“5. That the appellant is resident of Dehri, Bihar and as such he could not come to his counsel at Ranchi for instructing him to file the instant appeal within time, since he fail suddenly ill and had been suffering from viral fever, cough and cold for 26 days and after recovery when he contacted his lawyer by that time limitation of 30 days has already expired, hence this I.A. for the condonation of delay in filing the instant memo of appeal.

6. That the appellant was all along vigilant in pursuing its case and there is no willful latches or negligence on part of the appellant or his counsel and the circumstances under which the delay had occurred was completely beyond control and the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in not filing this appeal within time.

7. That the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and injury if delay consumed in filing of the instant application is not condoned by this Hon'ble Court and opportunity is not granted to the appellant to contest the appeal on merit.

8. That the appellant has a good prima-facie case in this appeal for consideration of this Hon'ble Court and as such, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal may be condoned and the case may be heard on merit.”

3. In view of the averments made in the application, I.A No. 9601 of 2023 is allowed.

L.P.A. No. 579 of 2023

4. The writ petitioner after his failed attempt in W.P. (S) No. 2659 of 2014 has approached this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. On a glance at the order dated 26th July 2023, we gather that the writ Court did not entertain the prayer of the appellant primarily on the ground that appointment from a panel of select list cannot be made about quarter a century after others were appointed.

6. The writ Court has held as under:

“7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference for the following reasons:

(i) The petitioner cannot claim parity with the petitioners of CWJC No. 2338/1998 (R) on the ground that the petitioners of said CWJC were appointed on having requisite qualification.

(ii) The vacancies have already been filled up as 103 persons in Grade-IV have already been appointed as per Roster as they fulfilled the requisite qualifications.

(iii) The process of appointment has already been over. Panel cannot be kept alive as now 23 years have passed.

(iv) Similarly situated persons had already approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3726 of 2014, W.P. (S) 1749 of 2009 and W.P. (S) No. 1752 of 2009, wherein, a direction was issued by this Court to the respondents to consider their claims. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand has passed a reasoned order, rejecting the claim of that petitioners, for the reason that the respondents have already appointed 103 persons in Grade IV as per the reservation roaster for the appointment of the persons whose names were mentioned in the panel list of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district.

(v) The petitioner has approached this Court after 16 years of long delay for claiming parity with the petitioners of CWJC No. 2338/1998 (R), who have already been appointed and as such, this writ petition cannot be entertained on the ground of gross delay itself. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chennai Metro Politan Water Supply and Swerage Board and Others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, at relevant paras has held thus:

“Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same.

The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction.