Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs A.Nirmala on 14 December, 2016
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: Nooty.Ramamohana Rao, S.M.Subramaniam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 14.12.2016 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO AND THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.A.No.SR42136 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.19350 of 2016 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 3.The District Educational Officer, Salem. ... Appellants/Petitioners Vs. 1.A.Nirmala 2.St.Joseph Girls Higher Secondary School, Rep. by the Secretary/Correspondent, Salem-5. ... Respondents/Respondents C.M.P.No.19350 of 2016 : Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 345 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated 01.06.2015 made in W.P.No.15288 of 2015. W.A.No.SR42136 of 2016 : Writ Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 01.06.2015 in Writ Petition No.15288 of 2015. For Petitioners : Mr.P.S.Shiva Shanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for Ms.Srividhya for R1 O R D E R
[Delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.] This is a petition taken out seeking condonation of delay of 345 days in filing the Writ Appeal.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition sworn to by one Shri.K.Ramalingam, S/o.A.Kandasamy, District Educational Officer, Salem-I, the explanation offered for condonation of delay was set out in paragraph No.5, which reads as under.
5. It is submitted that the order dated 01.06.2015 made on W.P.No.15288 of 2015 was made ready on 23.06.2015 and received in the office of the 3rd petitioner/appellant on 15.07.2015. Thereafter, the 3rd petitioner/appellant has sent a letter to Law Officer vide Na.Ka.No.3531/B2/2015 dated 01.10.2015 sought legal opinion for filing Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Judge. On 04.01.2016 the Law Officer sought for some additional particulars in this regard and the same was submitted to the Law Officer. The Law Officer opined that it is a fit case for filing Writ Appeal on 03.02.2015. It is further submitted that in the month of October 2015 the 3rd petitioner/appellant herein was appointed for examination duties for conducting the supplementary public examination for the classes of 10th and 12th Standard. The examination work includes receipt and custodian of question papers, conducting the examination, valuation camp, issue of mark sheet. The said work has extended till December 2015. In the month of December 2015 heavy rain in Chennai which paralyzed the movement and till January 2016. The draft Grounds and affidavit are sent for the approval of learned Special Government Pleader on 12.02.2016 and the same was approved on 12.02.2016. It is most humbly submitted that there were frequent transfer of officers and staff in the office of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners/appellants which has also attributed to the delay in filing the Writ Appeal. Hence, there was a delay of 345 days in filing the present Writ Appeal. The delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to above said bonafide administrative grounds.
3. From the reading of the above passage, we are clearly of the opinion that the usual lethargy and carelessness to pursue the remedy available to a litigant is visible. It is the District Educational Officer, who should know the significance and importance of sticking to time schedules, more than many other Government servants.
4. The explanation reveals that as the third petitioner/appellant was entrusted with a task of conducting supplementary public examinations for classes X and XII and hence, that work has engaged his attention, till the end of December 2015. It is further stated that the learned Special Government Pleader has settled the memorandum of grounds of appeal on February 2016. But, however, it is four months thereafter, the accompanying Writ Appeal was preferred on 10.06.2016.
5. For the sheer recklessness on the part of the appellants in pursuing the remedy available to them, promptly, carefully and that too, with necessary diligence, the delay in presenting the appeal could not be condoned.
6. Normally, we show a lot of indulgence in condoning the delay, as we are of the opinion that delay shall not frustrate the cause of justice. But, at the same time, we cannot condone the lazy and lethargic attitude adopted by the parties in approaching the courts as otherwise, condonation of unexplained delay running to more than 100 days would amount to paying a premium, if not compliments for the laziness and lethargic attitude exhibited. For the sheer failure to assign any reason, much less justifiable reason, in not preferring the appeal in quick time, after the memorandum of grounds has been settled by the learned Special Government Pleader on 10.02.2016, we decline to condone the delay. The period beyond 10.02.2016 was left completely unexplained.
7. This apart, all that the learned Single Judge did was to direct the first respondent in the Writ Petition, namely, The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to the Government in the Education Department to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.05.2015, in the light of the orders passed by the State Government contained in their G.O.[2D].No.15 School Education [J] Department dated 28.03.2013.
8. Therefore, no serious prejudice is going to be caused to the appellants, by our declining to condone the delay and by declining to entertain the Writ Appeal. Hence, the petition for seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Accordingly, the accompanying Writ Appeal in W.A.No.SR42136 of 2016 stands rejected.
[N.R.R., J.] [S.M.S., J.]
14.12.2016
gya
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.
and
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gya
W.A.No.SR42136 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.19350 of 2016
14.12.2016