The court emphasized that the delay in filing a review petition can be condoned if a sufficient cause is shown, and reiterated that promotions must comply with eligibility criteria to avoid perpetuating illegality.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A No.12171 of 2024

1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 627 days in preferring the present review petition.

2. The reason has been assigned as would be evident from paragraph no.6 onward that after the order dated 16.12.2022 was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A No.392 of 2019 thereafter the review petitioners approached the Hon’ble Apex Court to challenge the said order in S.L.P (C) No.3283 of 2023 but the same was dismissed in limine vide order dated 20.02.2023.

3. Thereafter, the review petitioners herein filed a review being R.P(C) No.1508 of 2024 (Diary No.12140 of 2024) on 14.03.2024 against the order dated 20.02.2023 passed in S.L.P (C) No.3283 of 2023 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2024. Thereafter, the present review petition has been filed.

4. The ground, therefore, has been taken that due to pending proceeding before the Hon’ble Apex Court the delay has been caused in filing the instant review petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the ground referred in the instant interlocutory application for the purpose of condonation of delay of 627 days.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of petition suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.

8. Further it is settled position of law that while considering the delay condonation application, the Court of Law is required to consider the sufficient cause for condonation of delay as also the approach of the litigant as to whether it is bona fide or not as because after expiry of the period of limitation, a right is accrued in favour of the other side and as such, it is necessary to look into the bona fide motive of the litigant and at the same time, due to inaction and laches on its part.

9. It also requires to refer herein that what is the meaning of “sufficient cause”. The consideration of meaning of “sufficient cause” has been made in Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [ (2013) 14 SCC 81 ], wherein, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 9 to 15 hereunder:-

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [ AIR 1964 SC 1336 ], Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [ (1969) 2 SCC 770 ], Parim