The Court held that appeals filed beyond the limitation period without applying for condonation of delay are not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. S. Rath, learned counsel for O.P. No.5 and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners-Governing Body as well as the Principal-in- Charge-cum-Secretary of Soro Women’s College, Soro, Balasore inter alia challenging judgment dated 07.01.2023 so passed by the State Education Tribunal (In short “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No.9 of 2018 under Annexure-5. Vide the said judgment, the Tribunal allowed the claim of O.P. No.5 and with a direction on the petitioners to allow O.P. No.5 to join in his duty in the College and pay his salary including arrears w.e.f. 07.01.2012.

3. While assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that O.P. No.4 was appointed vide order dated 15.08.1996 as a Watchman and pursuant to the said order, O.P. No.4 joined as a Watchman in the College on 01.09.1986. O.P. No.5 on the other hand was appointed as a Peon vide order dated 15.09.1986 and in terms of the said order, he joined as a Peon on 01.10.1986.

3.1. It is contended that in the meantime when the College in question became eligible to receive Grant-in- Aid under GIA Order, 1994 and as per the yardstick so prescribed in the said order, only 2 (two) Class-IV posts were made admissible to receive Grant-in-Aid. Accordingly, services of O.P. No.4 was approved as he was an earlier appointee than O.P. No.5 as against the post of Peon vide order dated 15.03.1996 and he received Grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994. Such approval of services of O.P. No.4 making him entitled to receive Grant-in-Aid under GIA Order, 1994 was never assailed by O.P. No.5.

3.2. Not only that services of O.P. No.5 was also approved, but against the post of Watchman and he was released with Block Grant w.e.f. 20.01.2009 under GIA Order, 2009. Only after approval of his services as against the post of Watchman making him entitled to receive Block Grant under GIA Order, 2009, O.P. No.5 raised objection against the continuance of O.P. No.4 as a Peon in the College and his continuance and approval as Watchman of the College by making a representation on 03.11.2011.

3.3. After making such application, O.P. No.5 when made an application on 04.11.2011 seeking leave of 1 (one) month w.e.f. 08.11.2011, the said leave was never sanctioned. However, after making such application for leave, O.P. No.5 when did not resume his duty w.e.f. 08.11.2011, a show-cause was issued by the College on 24.11.2011. Even though such show-cause was duly received by O.P. No.5, but he declined to file his reply on the ground that no communication has been made by the College with regard to his objection to the continuance of O.P. No.4 as Peon of the College so made on 03.11.2011.

3.4. While declining to file his reply to the show-cause vide his letter dated 04.12.2011, O.P. No.5 made another application on the same date for extension of leave for another one month on 04.12.2011

3.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by alleging that joining of O.P. No.5 so made on 07.01.2012 is not being accepted by the College, O.P. No.5 made a representation before O.P. No.2 on 09.01.2012. Thereafter, when another application was made by O.P. No.5 before the Director on 19.01.2012, alleging therein that his joining is not being accepted so submitted on 07.01.2012, petitioner-College vide letter dated 25.01.2012, directed O.P. No.5 to join in his duty and to show-cause for his unauthorized absence w.e.f. 08.11.2011.

3.6. It is contended that on the face of such show- cause and direction issued, O.P. No.5 neither joined in his duty nor submitted his reply to the show-cause for his unauthorized absence w.e.f. 08.11.2011. However, alleging pr