JUDGMENT

Heard Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited for appellants and Sri B.Balaji, learned counsel representing Sri M.Goutham Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.1 of 2025, is filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay of 236 days in preferring the accompanying writ appeal. The said writ appeal is directed against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.45687 of 2018, whereby the writ petition came to be allowed and the appellants were directed to reconsider the respondent’s (writ petitioner) case for appointment to the post of Motor Mechanic Trainee Category-I under Notification No.2 of 2015.

3. Before entering upon the merits of the Writ Appeal, it becomes necessary to examine the issue of limitation, as the appeal is presented with a delay of 236 days. Such delay, being prima facie significant, calls for a careful consideration and cannot be treated as a matter of routine.

Factual matrix (in brief)

4. The respondent pursuant to Employment Notification No.2 of 2015 issued by the appellant-Company applied for the post of Motor Mechanic Trainee, Category-I (External). A written test was conducted on 18.12.2016, in which the respondent secured 48.88 marks. Due to certain litigations filed by ineligible candidates, the finalization of the selection list was delayed. Consequently, this Court directed the appellant-Company to declare the results. Accordingly, a provisional selection list was displayed on 05.06.2017.

5. For the posts under the BC-‘B’ category, three candidates were selected based on merit. The details of the selected candidates are extracted hereunder:

6. The 3rd selected candidate one Shareef SK, did not join the post. The respondent, being the next meritorious candidate in the BC-‘B’ category with 48.88 marks, staked a claim to the unfilled vacancy. The respondent submitted a representation to the appellants on 13.08.2018, requesting that his candidature be considered for the said vacant post. When the respondent’s representation was not acted upon, the respondent filed W.P. No. 35078 of 2018 before this Court, which was disposed of by an order dated 01.10.2018, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the appellants to consider the representation dated 13.08.2018. In compliance with the order dated 01.10.2018, the 3rd appellant passed a speaking order on 24.11.2018 (Ref.No.CRP/PER/R/05/2018/1086), rejecting the respondent’s candidature.

7. The sole ground for rejection, as stated in the speaking order, was that the respondent’s representation was submitted after the expiry of the panel validity period. As per the appellants, the merit/selection list was valid for a period of one year, i.e., from 10.06.2017 to 09.06.2018, whereas the respondent’s representation was made on 13.08.2018, nearly two months after the panel had lapsed. Aggrieved by the speaking order dated 24.11.2018, the respondent filed W.P.No.45687 of 2018 seeking a direction to set aside the said order and to consider his case for appointment.

8. The Learned Single Judge, by an order dated 18.03.2025, allowed the writ petition and held that the appellants had failed to consider the respondent’s candidature despite him being the next meritorious candidate and a vacancy having arisen. The learned Single Judge observed that the inaction of the appellants during the validity period of the merit list caused procedural unfairness.

9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants-Company has preferred the present writ appeal along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

10. Learned counsel for the appellants, while