The court ruled that delays in filing appeals by government entities must be justified by adequate reasons, emphasizing that procedural inefficiencies do not equate to 'sufficient cause' under law.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent appeal is directed against the order dated 08.06.2022 passed in W.P(S) No.2538 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge by allowing the writ petition has directed the State-authority (appellants herein) to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:

(i) It is pleaded that the writ petitioners were appointed since 1993, 1994 and 1996 respectively and working for more than ten years in the office of the respondents concerned.

(ii) It is specific case of the petitioners that from the date of appointments, they are working to the full satisfaction of their controlling authorities, wherever they were posted. In the year 2011, a written examination was conducted on 31.7.2011 for appointment of Grade-IV posts. The petitioners participated in the examination and upon publication of results, all the petitioners were called for interview, but the same stood cancelled and thereafter no examination was held.

(iii) It is also pleaded that an approval for vacant and sanctioned seats/posts was made by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, stating the total number of seats. Since the petitioners are still working on the said posts, their cases ought to have regularized, but no decision has yet been taken by the respondents, which compelled them to approach this Court by filing W.P(S) No.2538 of 2017.

3. The learned Single Judge by allowing the writ petition has directed the State-authority (appellants herein) to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

4. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State-Appellant.

Submission on behalf of the State-appellant:

5. In support of his contention, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned AAG-II has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order:

(i) It has been contended that the present appeal has been filed after delay of 575 days and for condonation of such delay, an interlocutory application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 being I.A No.53 of 2024 has been filed by the State.

(ii) It has been contended by referring to paragraph nos.4 to 7 of the application for condonation of delay that due to the reason mentioned in those paragraphs, the delay has been caused and, as such, a prayer has been made to condone the delay so as to hear the matter on merit.

(iii) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that without giving any finding in the writ petition only to direct to take decision upon the representation of the writ petitioners/respondents which were taken by the respondents but the learned Single Judge not satisfied with the reasoned order.

(iv) It has further been contended that the writ petitioners have not been appointed on the sanctioned vacant post which is mandatory condition as laid down b the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Karnataka vrs. Uma Devi” reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1

(v) It has further been contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the writ petitioners ha