The court ruled that a third party lacks locus standi to appeal an employment decision unless they can demonstrate direct and substantial legal injury. The right to appeal is confined to aggrieved parties only.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

I.A. No. 1 of 2024

1. The instant special appeal has been filed by Niraj Kumar Singh alongwith an application seeking leave of the Court to appeal and it is also accompanied by another application bearing I.A. No.1 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay as the office has reported the appeal to be barred by limitation by 63 days.

2. Shri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Srideep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant appeal at the behest of the appellant Niraj Kumar Singh. This objection shall be considered a little later.

3. However, first it will be appropriate to consider the application seeking condonation of delay. The said application is accompanied by an affidavit, where in Paragraphs 11 to 18, the explanation for seeking condonation of delay has been furnished.

4. Explaining the delay, it was urged that once the order was passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition then it should have been the employer Institution i.e. King George's Medical University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to 'KGMU' for short), who should have assailed the said order by filing an appeal. However, once the KGMU did not take any proactive step for filing the special appeal during the prescribed period of limitation, it is thereafter the appellant Niraj Kumar Singh prepared and got the instant appeal filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the delay, as reported, was unintentional and bonafide. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned.

5. The aforesaid submissions have been controverted by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent and also the learned counsel for the KGMU stating that no proper explanation has been given to seek the condonation of delay especially when the appellant Niraj Kumar Singh does not have the locus standi to file the special appeal.

6. This Court has considered the submissions of the respective parties and finds that the crux of the submission of Shri Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the writ-petitioner/respondent was primarily focused on the issue of locus standi of the appellant and the issue of delay is intricately connected and made dependent on the issue of locus standi.

7. This Court finds that the two issues are separate, hence, the issue of locus standi will be considered separately while dealing with the application seeking leave to appeal.

8. Insofar as the application for condonation of delay is concerned and looking into the explanation furnished for the delay, this Court is of the view that the delay has been sufficiently explained. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal shall stand condoned. Office shall allot a regular number to the special appeal.

Order on Application seeking leave to appeal by the third party/appellant dated 15.10.2024.

9. Shri Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent has raised an objection regarding maintainability and locus standi of the appellant/third party, namely, Niraj Kumar Singh to maintain this special appeal.

10. It was urged that the appellant is a complete stranger to the proceedings and he has no right to assail the judgment passed in favour of the writ-petitioner/respondent as he does not fall within the category of an 'aggrieved person'.

11. Learned Senior Counsel further urged that unless there is any legal injury, the appellant cannot be permitted to ass