IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Harish Tandon &

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee MAT 1164 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024, CAN 2 of 2024 The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Versus Sk. Obaidullah & Ors.

For the appellants : Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty.

For the respondent : Mr. Ekramul Bari, Md. Mojnu Sk.

For the respondent no. 9 : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya.

Hearing is concluded on : 12^th February, 2025 Judgment On : 18^th March, 2025 Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

1. The present application has been filed at the behest of the State of West Bengal and its functionaries, seeking the condonation of a delay of 252 days in filing the proposed appeal, which aims to challenge the justifiability of the order dated 5^th September 2023, passed in WPA 25121 of 2016. By this order, the writ petition was disposed of, directing the concerned respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioners as organising teaching and non-teaching staffs of the school. Furthermore, the respondents were directed to disburse the benefits consequential to the approval of their appointment, including current and arrear salaries, and pension, as the case may be, within the time specified in the order.

2. Sans unnecessary details, the essential facts need to be adumbrated for the effective adjudication of this application are that a second round of litigation began between the writ petitioners/respondents (hereinafter, the petitioners) and the appellants when the aforementioned writ petition, WPA 25121 of 2016, was filed challenging an order dated 3^rd December 2015 issued by the Director of Madrash Education. This order was issued in compliance with an order passed in WP No. 13470(W), rejecting the petitioners' prayer for approval of their appointments, citing the reason that their names did not appear in the DLIT report.

3. Before the learned Single Bench, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that, although petitioner no. 1 and the other petitioners had been serving the school since 1986 and 1994, respectively, their names were not included in the report. As noted earlier, after evaluating the materials on record and considering the arguments of both parties, the learned Single Bench accepted the petitioners' contention and passed the order now sought to be challenged in the proposed appeal.

4. As indicated in the report of the Stamp Reporter, there is a delay of 252 days in the presentation of the memorandum of appeal. Therefore, the present application has been filed seeking condonation of the delay. We find it appropriate to reproduce the grounds for the delay, as enumerated in paragraph 2 of the application, which are as follows:

“i) The judgment and order was delivered on 5^th September, 2023; ii) The inadvertent typographical error was rectified on 15^th September, 2023; iii) The judgment and other was communicated by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner on 27^th September, 2023; iv) The Department concerned requested the Learned Advocate for the State to prefer appeal vide. communication dated 6^th November, 2023; v) Conference were held with the Learned Advocate by the Department on 22^nd November, 2023 and 8^th December, 2023; vi) on and from 23^rd December, 2023 to 1^st January, 2024 the Hon’ble Court was on winter vacation; vii) The certified copy of the judgment and order was applied on 23rd November, 2023 and the same was delivered by the concerned of the Hon’ble Court on 3^rd January, 2024; viii) Memorandum of Appeal was made ready and forwarded to the Department on 24^th January, 2024; ix) The Department though took steps for filing the Appeal in the 1^st week of February, 2024 but could not do so due to non-availability of Memo. dated 511-SE (S) dated 29.03.2000 issued by the State; x) Inspite of vehement search the said Memo could not be traced, and therefore, finally bereft of such Memo the Appeal was filed on 13.06.2024; xi) Consequently, there h