Administrative reasons for delay in filing review applications must be substantiated with reasonable explanations; otherwise, the applications will be rejected.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI)

[1] These applications are filed, though no provisions are mentioned in the title under which law it is filed, praying for condonation of 328 days delay caused in preferring the applications for review of the common judgment and order dated 27.03.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.838 of 2022 and other allied matters. These applications are filed praying for condonation of delay for three of such cases out of the group determined being Letters Patent Appeal Nos.838 of 2022, 170 of 2023 and 172 of 2023 respectively.

[2] It is averred in the applications that the order passed by this Court dated 27.03.2023 was received by the Office of the applicant on 25.04.2023. It is further averred that the applicant was advised by their panel advocate to either file SLP in the Supreme Court or to file speaking to minutes with regard to rectification of the words “Revised Provisional Recommendation List” instead of “Merit List” in LPA judgment. It is further averred that since the judgment and order passed in LPA affects whole recruitment process and it may further affect recruitment process in future, applicant sent a copy of the order to the higher authorities on 25.04.2023, seeking its opinion. The communication dated 25.04.2023 is annexed along with affidavit in rejoinder filed by the applicant, which is at page No.N/7 as Annexure-R1. Though in reference opinion of panel advocate through e-mail dated 19.04.2023 is referred, copy thereof is not produced at all in these entire compilation. Despite that, it is averred that the applicant was advised by panel advocate to either file the SLP or to file speaking to minutes for rectification, as aforesaid. However, the very said communication at page No.N/7 dated 25.04.2023 is seen, by communication through e-mail dated 19.04.2023, panel advocate has advised to implement the judgment.

[3] It is further averred in the applications that higher authorities gave oral opinion on 27.07.2023 and gave opinion in writing on 28.07.2023 to file speaking to minutes in these matters. As further averred, as per the instructions, the applicant, after consulting with the panel advocate, proceeded to do the same. Therefore, on 27.07.2023 the applicant was asked by their panel advocate to file speaking to minutes before High Court and it came to be filed by the advocate of the applicant on same day.

[4] As such, as averred in para-2 of the applications, cause for delay is shown to be due to administrative reasons. The order on speaking to minutes note dated 22.12.2023 is claimed to be dispatched by the High Court on 10.01.2024 and its certified copy was received by the applicant on 28.02.2024. It is again averred that thereafter on 04.03.2024, applicant’s advocate advised to file SLP in the Supreme Court. But Panchayat Department gave opinion on 04.03.2024 to file MCA for clarification in LPA No.838 of 2022 and allied matters. So, as per the applicant – Department’s instruction, applicant contacted their panel advocate on 07.03.2024 for filing MCA for clarification in LPA No.838 of 2022 and allied matters.

[5] As such, after the opinion of their panel advocate to prefer SLP before the Supreme Court, if at all the department’s opinion was to be followed, it guided applicant to file MCA for clarification and not the review application which is filed. Therefore, it appears that applicant is conveniently avoiding either accepting the judgment and order or avoiding filing SLP before the Supreme Court, as advised by their panel advocate since long. As stated hereinabove, on the contrary, learned panel advocate of the applicant vide e-mail communication dated 19.04.2023, advised them to accept the ju