Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj vs Ranveer Singh & Anr on 23 March, 2017
Bench: Govind Mathur, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 204 / 2016
State Of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government,
Department of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ranveer Singh S/o. Shri Sultan Singh R/o. B-78, Mataji Ka
Mandir, Sadulganj, Bikaner.
----Respondent
2. Dungar College, Bikaner through its Principal, Bikaner.
-----Proforma respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG, assisted by
Mr. Vikas Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.K. Vyas
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 23/03/2017 This appeal is barred by limitation from 84 days. An application is preferred to have condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As per the respondents the delay occurred due to certain administrative reasons.
From perusal of the facts, it reveals that copy of the judgment dated 4.9.2015 was supplied on 16.9.2015, after having application on 7.9.2015. The copy of judgment dated 4.9.2015 was sent to the Joint Director, College Education but was placed (2 of 3) [SAW-105/2016] before the Joint Director on 12.10.2015. No details have been given as to what happened in between 16.9.2015 to 12.10.2015. On 14.10.2015 the matter was placed before the Principal Secretary and then the Deputy Legal Remembrancer proposed to present appeal. The Pre-Litigation Committee on 26.10.2015 decided to go for appeal. Officer Incharge then was appointed on 28.10.2015 and record of the case was given to him. On 14.11.2015 the Officer Incharge made contact with the office of Additional Advocate General on 18.11.2015 and appeal thereafter was presented on 22.1.2016.
The facts mentioned above does not disclose the reason as to what happened after 28.10.2015 to 14.11.2015 and why delay occurred in handing-over record of the case to the Officer Incharge. No reason has also been given as to why the appeal was not filed uptil 22.1.2015.
The facts noticed above clearly indicates lethargy on the part of the appellant. No justifiable reason is available to condone delay in filing the appeal, as such, the application deserves dismissal.
Irrespective of the delay, we have examined merits of the case. The respondents admittedly regularized service of one (3 of 3) [SAW-105/2016] person, namely, Om Prakash, whose case is not at all distinguishable with the case of the respondent-Ranveer Singh.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State failed to point out any reason to ignore the petitioner from regularization in service, though, his case is exactly similar to the case of Om Prakash. Suffice to mention that the regularization of Shri Om Prakash in service too has not been withdrawn.
In view of whatever stated above, the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the appeal are dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Sanjay