The court emphasized that significant delays in filing appeals must be justified by a reasonable and bona fide explanation, failing which the application for condonation of delay will be dismissed.

JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by SHAMIM AHMED, J.)

This intra court appeal has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court dated 06.12.2006, made in W.P.No.11493 of 2004.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the petitioner/Appellant to condone the delay of 5828 days in filing the above Writ Appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11493 of 2004.

3. Before the Writ Court, the appellant herein has filed writ petition against the respondents herein seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent relating to the order issued in Mu. Mu.No.112091/W6/2001, dated 06.01.2004 and quasht he same and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant approval for appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant (Physics) in which, the petitioner is appointed, with effect from 10.03.2000 with all attended benefits.

4. The facts of the case leading to filing of the present Writ Appeal as per the appellant/writ petitioner is as follows:

(a) The writ petitioner was appointed as P.G. Assistant (physics) in a regular sanctioned post in the fourth respondent school which is a aided minority school on 10.03.2000, in the vacancy arose due to the voluntary retirement of an incumbent.

(b) On 19.12.1996, the 2^nd respondent, for the academic year 1996-1997, fixed one post of P.G.Asst. (Physics) as surplus post with teacher, but the teacher working in the said post was continuously paid by the department without any break.

(c) Subsequent to appointment of writ petitioner, the 4^th respondent school forwarded the proposal for approval of appointment of writ petitioner in the post of PG Assistant (physics) to the 3^rd respondent on 06.04.2000, however, the 3^rd respondent returned the proposal on 17.04.2000 stating that the post is surplus one.

(d) Since the PG Assistant (physics) which was declared as surplus has not yet been surrendered or transferred to any other school and the same remains with the 4th respondent school itself, the 4^th respondent school made representations to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents for approval of writ petitioner's appointment indicating the increased strength of students in XI and XII standards and that the writ petitioner is taking 34 periods and the strength of 11^th and 12 th standards in 1^st and 2^nd group is 130

(e) On the basis of representations, the 2^nd respondent called for report from the 3^rd respondent to find out as to whether the one post of P.G.Asst. (physics) in the 4^th respondent school still remains surplus and on that basis, the 3^rd respondent also inspected the school on 01.08.2001 and submitted his report stating that the students strength has been increased every year and the work load of the teachers have also been correspondingly increased and the petitioner is taking 34 periods every week and hence, the post in which the writ petitioner was appointed cannot be declared as surplus and on that basis, appointment should be approved by the department.

(f) It is the grievance of the writ petitioner in the stated circumstances, to his shock and surprise, the 1^st respondent issued proceedings dated 06.01.2004 rejecting the proposal sent by the school management for approval of his appointment.

(g) According to the writ petitioner, the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed to the post arisen due to the retirement of incumbent on 30.11.1999 and further, there is incr