Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State & Ors vs Smt. Neetu Chaudhary on 13 October, 2008
Author: N P Gupta
Bench: N P Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 06903 of 2007
STATE & ORS
V/S
SMT. NEETU CHAUDHARY
Mrs. RR KANWAR, AGA, for the appellant / petitioner
Date of Order : 13.10.2008
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J.
ORDER
-----
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The Registry has reported the appeal to be barred by 278 days. A look at the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act shows that all that has been alleged therein is that the writ was decided on 1.12.2006, certified copy was applied on 2.12.2006, which was received on 2.1.2007. Then the matter was sent alongwith the legal opinion on 18.1.2007 to the officer-in-charge, which was received by him on 5.2.2007. Thereafter the stock pleading is taken, about the matter being considered at various levels in the department, and ultimately decision having been taken for filing special appeal. The appeal is filed on 5.12.2007 i.e. after more than 10 months of the copy being received by the officer-in-charge, and nothing has been shown, as to how this delay occurred. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time. This is one 2 aspect of the matter.
However, in order to ensure that any grave injustice is not suffered by the appellant on account of the appeal being dismissed on the ground of limitation, for that limited purpose, we have gone through the impugned order, and find that the writ petitioner had undergone the Mid-wifery Course pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.11.2005. Then she was allowed to appear in the final examination of the course also, and vide order dated 14.11.2006 result was directed to be made available for perusal of the Court, and the Court found that the writ petitioner had passed the course concern. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has found that since the writ petitioner has already acquired the qualification, and therefore, there is no need to enter into merits of the case. In our view, interference in appeal is likely to result into denuding the writ petitioner of the qualification already acquired by her, may be for some hypertechnical fault, that may be made out by undertaking hair spinning exercise. Thus, it cannot be said that if the appeal is dismissed as time barred, any grave injustice would be suffered by the appellant.
Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.
( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/