S. N. KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH this petition is listed for preliminary hearing in "b" group, the same is heard finally by consent and disposed off by this order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7-11-2000 passed in Appeal No. 72 of 2000 (HE) by the second respondent. ( 3 ) THE petitioner challenged the action of the first respondent denying counting of service prior to regular appointment for pay fixation and other benefits in W. P. No. 21655 of 1992. This Court by its order dated 13-11-1997 disposed off the writ petition reserving the liberty to the petitioner to make a proper representation before the State Government and the Director of Collegiate Education requesting them for continuity of service for the purpose of seniority, pay fixation and such other benefits with effect from the date of his initial appointment as has been done in the case of lecturers appointed in Government colleges. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation dated 15-4-1998 as per annexure-C to the first respondent. The first respondent issued an endorsement dated 28-7-1998 rejecting the claim of the petitioner as per Annexure-D. Aggrieved by the said order of first respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The petitioner also filed an application explaining the reasons for delay in preferring the appeal along with the memorandum of appeal. The second respondent-Appellate Authority by a cryptic order without considering the application for condonation of delay passed the impugned order on the ground that it is barred by time. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition. ( 4 ) SRI P. S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for petitioner, submits the order passed by the second respondent stating that the appeal is inadmissible since it is barred by time is illegal and liable to be set aside. Elaborating his contention he submits the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Rules framed under the said Act do not provide for a specific provision for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Elaborating his contention he submits the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Rules framed under the said Act do not provide for a specific provision for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. In the absence of any express provision in the aforesaid Act and the Rules which prevented the Appellate Authority from condoning the delay, the appellate Authority ought to have entertained the application for condonation of delay and considered the said application on merits and thereafter he ought to have proceeded to dispose of the application on merits. ( 5 ) IT is true that in the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Rules framed thereunder there is no provision providing for condonation of delay. Similarly, there is no provision which excludes the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is the general law governing the limitation prescribed for filing a suit or preferring an appeal or application. Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear when for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed in a suit or appeal or application under any specific or local law the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. When there is no provision in the Karnataka Education Act and the rules excluding the provision of Limitation Act, Sections 2 to 24 of the limitation Act apply to the appeals filed under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education act. In that view of the matter, Appellate Authority committed an error in not entertaining the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and decide the said application on merits. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly it is liable to be quashed. Therefore, I pass the following order. ( 6 ) WRIT petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned order at Annexure-F, dated 7-11-2000 passed in Appeal No. 72 of 2000 (HE) by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Education department, second respondent herein is quashed. The second respondent is directed to take the aforesaid appeal on his file, entertain the application for condonation of delay and to hear and dispose of the said application on merits. ( 7 ) PARTIES to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .