Roan Giri vs State Of Chhattisgah

Heard Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.No.01 of 2022, which is an application for condonation of delay of 177 days in preferring the connected appeal against the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3824 of 2012. Also heard Mr.Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr.Ashish Surana, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5.

Briefly stated, relevant facts, are that the appellant and respondent No.5 have been litigating for the post of Aganbadi Karyakarta. The present respondent No.5 was appointed on 29.01.2009. The order of appointment of respondent No.5 was cancelled on 25.03.2010, as a result of which, writ petition being WPS No.3934 of 2010 was instituted before this Court. The writ petition was allowed by an order dated 25.02.2011 and an appeal being WA No.246 of 2011 was preferred by the appellant and the same was disposed of by an order dated 10.01.2012 granting liberty to the respondent-State to take appropriate steps against respondent No.5 by affording an opportunity of hearing to her. Pursuant thereto, an order dated 01.08.2012 came to be passed, which was put to challenge in WPS No.3824 of 2012, out of which, the present appeal arises.

The learned Single Judge observed that the order dated 01.08.2012 was in contravention to the order dated 10.01.2012 passed in WA No.246 of 2011.

In the intervening period, the present appellant was holding the post of Aganbabi Karyakarta.

The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as follows:-

“10. However, the right of the Respondents, the State as also the Janpad Panchayat, stands reserved to conduct an enquiry as earlier directed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.246/2011 decided on 10.1.2012 and thereafter pass appropriate orders so far as the claim of the Petitioner is concerned relating to appointment to the post of Anganbadi Worker at Anganbadi Centre, Narkalo Ahirapara, Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur.

Considering the fact that Respondent No.5 has already been given appointment and the Petitioner being out of employment for almost a decade now, ends of justice would meet if Respondent No.5 is permitted to continue in employment, with a direction to Respondent Authorities that, if they so want, an enquiry should be initiated and completed at the earliest within an outer limit of six months, failing which the Respondents will have to cancel the appointment of Respondent No.5 and grant appointment to the Petitioner.”

Mr.Ashish Surana submits that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 04.04.2022, an enquiry was conducted and after cancelling the appointment of the present appellant (respondent No.5 in the writ petition), respondent No.5 in this appeal (writ petitioner) has been appointed on 15.09.2022 and only thereafter, the present writ petition came to be filed on 14.11.2022. He further submits that in the writ appeal, not only the order of the learned Single Judge is assailed but also the order of appointment dated 15.09.2022. It is submitted by him that there was no explanation for delay in the application for condonation of delay. In that view of the matter, such an application deserves to be dismissed.

Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Patel submits that as some enquiry was being conducted, the appellant did not immediately file the appeal.

The application for condonation of delay reads as follows:-

“APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

The appellant, named above respectfully submits as under:-

That, the appellant has filed instant appeal before the Hon’ble High Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble High Court in WPS No.3824/2022, Vandana Giri Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others”, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner, which is pending for kind consideration.

That, the appeal is being filed after lapse of considerable period as the appellant after passing of the order Dated 04.04.2022, filed the writ appeal on 14.11.2022.

That, it is need to mentioned here that, after passing the order by the learned single judge, the respondents authorities, have issued the memo on 06.07.2022, to produce the original mark sheet of 8th class, and thereafter, without conducting the inquiry passed the order dated 5.09.2022, in which appointment of the appellant, was cancelled, thereafter, the appellant take the legal advise by reliable sources and contacted the counsel of the High Court, and thereafter, the counsel of the High Court, prepared the matter and filed the instant appeal, on 14.1.2022.

That, the mistake committed by the appellant is bonafide.

An affidavit in support of this application is filed.

PRAYER

It is, therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and the delay caused in filing present writ appeal may kindly be condoned and heard the appeal on merit, in the interest of justice.”

A perusal of the aforesaid application goes to show that no explanation has been given showing sufficient cause for delay of 177 days.

When there is no explanation whatsoever, this Court has no option but to dismiss the application for condonation of delay, not only on the ground that there is no satisfactory explanation, but also on the ground that the writ appeal has also been rendered infructuous.

Accordingly, I.A.No.01 of 2022 is dismissed. Resultantly, the writ appeal is also dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant to assail the order dated 15.09.2022, if so advised.