Judgment :- (Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent against the order of the learned Judge Mr. Justice D. Murugesan, dated04.11.2004 made in WP.No.8017 of 2004.) P. Sathasivam, J. MP.No.1 of 2006: This is a petition to condone the delay of 469 days in filing the writ appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 04.11.2004 made in Writ Petition No.8017 of 2004. 2. Though the affidavit filed in support of the above petition runs into several pages, in so far as the delay, paragraph 13 alone is relevant, wherein it is stated that copy of the order of the learned single Judge was received by the Office of District Educational Officer, Cheranmadevi on 22.11.2004. Thereafter, the District Educational Officer, Cheranmadevi has sent a communication dated 30.11.2004 to the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, seeking instruction from him as to the further course of action to be adopted. According to the deponent of the affidavit, since there has been various correspondence with higher officials as to clarification regarding filing of the above writ appeal, delay of 469 days has occurred. 3. It is clear that though the concerned officer, viz., District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi sent a communication to the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli as early as on 30.11.2004, the fact remains, the appeal was filed on 20.06.2006. Except stating that due to various correspondence with the higher officials as to clarification regarding filing of the appeal and no other tangible information has been furnished for condoning the delay of 469 days in filing the above appeal; hence, we are not satisfied with the reasons stated therein. 4. Apart from the above aspect, we also verified the order of the learned single Judge dated 04.11.2004 made in W.P.No.8017 of 20 04. 4. Apart from the above aspect, we also verified the order of the learned single Judge dated 04.11.2004 made in W.P.No.8017 of 20 04. A perusal of the order shows that based on the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.79 Education Department dated 14.06.2002, which came into force from 01.06.2002 and of the fact that one R.Mangala Kannan, whose qualification is B.Sc., B.Ed., was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 05.06.2002, viz., subsequent to the said Government Order, which permits the Management to appoint Graduate Teacher in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and also following the earlier order passed in W.P.No.47028 of 2002, the learned Judge, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order declining appointment of the said R. Mangala Kannan to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the respondent School. Inasmuch as the Government Order referred to above enables the Management to appoint Graduate Teacher in the place of Secondary Grade Teacher post with effect from 01.06.2002 and taking note of the fact that the Teacher concerned, viz., R. Mangala Kannan was appointed after the said date, viz., on 05.06.2002, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of the learned single Judge. 5. As observed earlier, even on merits we are of the view that the appellant has not made out a case for condoning the delay of 469 days in preferring the above appeal; hence, we are not inclined to condone the huge delay and this petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the delay condonation petition, WASR.No.329 89 of 2006 is rejected.