JUDGMENT : 2. This appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.3.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4162/2009 (S) whereby the petition filed by the petitioner challenging cancellation of his compassionate appointment was allowed. This appeal is also barred by limitation of 350 days, so an application (LA. No. 6103/2011) has been filed for condonation of delay. 3. The brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner late Gokal Singh Solanki was an Assistant Teacher in Govt. Higher Secondary SChool, Bareli, Development Block Badi, District Raisen and died on 21.6.2005. The petitioner had submitted an application for compassionate appointment alongwith affidavit, Annexure P/2, stating that no other member of his family was in government service. His elder brother had also submitted affidavit, Annexure P/4 stating that he was engaged as a Contract Teacher and he had no objection on appointment of his brother on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the respondent was appointed on compassionate ground. On the basis of complaint, a notice dated 30.4.2008, Annexure P/6, was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why his services be not terminated on the ground of submitting false information regarding employment in Government service of his elder brother. Thereafter, without considering his reply, his service were terminated. Being aggrieved with the order of termination, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 4. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties held thus: - Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that after death of his father, Late Gokal Singh Solanki, on 21.6.2005, petitioner had submitted an application and alongwith his application he had submitted his own affidavit and that of his mother and brother. In the affidavit available on record i.e., Annexures P/2, P/3 and P/4, it is clear that petitioner's mother Smt. Ramkali Bai, in Annexure P/3 in paragraph 1, has clearly stated that she is widow of Late Gokal Singh Solanki and petitioner be granted compassionate appointment, she is dependent on the petitioner and no other dependent is in government service. In the affidavit available on record i.e., Annexures P/2, P/3 and P/4, it is clear that petitioner's mother Smt. Ramkali Bai, in Annexure P/3 in paragraph 1, has clearly stated that she is widow of Late Gokal Singh Solanki and petitioner be granted compassionate appointment, she is dependent on the petitioner and no other dependent is in government service. Petitioner's elder brother Yogendra Singh Solanki, has also filed his affidavit - Annexure P/4, on 26.8.2005, and in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said affidavit, he has clearly stated that he is not an income tax payee, he is only a contract teacher i.e. Samvida Shala Shikshak - Grade III and no other member of the family is in government service. It is, therefore, clear that before appointment of the petitioner on 6.7.2006, vide Annexure P/5 respondents' were informed about engagement of Shri Yogendra Singh Solanki, elder brother of the petitioner, as a contract teacher. Inspite thereof petitioner was granted appointment rightly so, because a Samvida Shala Shikshak is not a government servant, in view of the principles laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Arun Singh Bhadoriya (supra) Under the policy governing grant of compassionate appointment -Annexure P/13 dated 22.1.2007 and the earlier policy dated 1.5.2000 i.e. Annexure R/2, the disqualification contemplated is that no member of the deceased's family should be a government servant, employed in any Corporation, Board, Council or Commission. A Samvida Shala Shikshak - contract teacher, is neither a government servant nor is he appointed in any Corporation, Board, Council or Commission of the Government. In that view of the matter, action taken by the respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on grounds indicated in the return and the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. Apart from the fact that there seems to be no disqualification in seeking compassionate appointment only because petitioner's brother is engaged as a Samvida Shala Shikshak, the facts remains that petitioner had disclosed all these facts, knowing fully well the fact about petitioner's brother being a contract teacher when respondents have appointed the petitioner they cannot now cancel the appointment on such consideration. Accordingly, finding the action of the respondents to be wholly unsustainable, for the grounds and reasons as indicated hereinabove, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, finding the action of the respondents to be wholly unsustainable, for the grounds and reasons as indicated hereinabove, this petition is allowed. Order dated 8.8.2008 Annexure P/12, passed by the competent authority, terminating the services of the petitioners, and order dated 5.3.2009 Annexure P/15, passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, are quashed. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, including back wages." 5. This order is under challenge in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact regarding employment of his elder brother in his application and as such by suppressing the material fact, he had obtained compassionate appointment which was rightly cancelled. 6. On the other hand Shei Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Samvida Shala Shikshak are appointed by the Panchayats and as such they do not come within the purview of Government Servant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The appellants/State has not challenged the order of the Single Judge dated30.3.2010 within prescribed period of limitation and filed the writ appeal on 30.4.2011 along with the application for condonation of delay of 350 days. In support of its prayer for condonation of delay, the State has also filed an affidavit of Shri Anil Vaidya, District Education Officer, Raisen. 9. The appellant/State in its application for condonation of delay have submitted that the opinion of the Government Advocate was obtained on 27.4.2010. The matter was forwarded to the Administrative Department vide letter dated.24.4.2010. (It appears that the said date is not correct.) Thereafter, the reminder was sent on 2.11.2010 then the matter was referred to the Law Department for grant of permission to file writ appeal vide memo dated 4.3.2011. After receiving sanction from the Law Department, OIC of the case was appointed on 22.3.2011. the OIC had collected the relevant record from the office of the Advocate General on 27.4.2011 and the writ appeal has been prepared and filed. The State have stated that delay was caused due to bonafide reasons. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed and argued that the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay of 350 days in filing the writ appeal are not correct, bonafide and legally sustainable. He has prayed that the application may be dismissed. 11. The State have stated that delay was caused due to bonafide reasons. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed and argued that the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay of 350 days in filing the writ appeal are not correct, bonafide and legally sustainable. He has prayed that the application may be dismissed. 11. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions and carefully Scrutinized the record. It appears that the State had applied for certified copy of the order on 1.4.2010 and the same was made available and collected on 1.4.2010. the application filed for condonation of delay does not explain the period of more than 6 months between 27.4.2010 and 2.11.2010. It is not explained as to what steps were taken during this long period. The authorities have taken the matter very lightly. Normally we are condoning such delay, if it is reasonable, but at the same time as a matter of grace such long delay cannot be condoned. If the officers have dealt with the matter negligently, or there is no explanation of such long delay, then the delay of more than six months without any proper explanation and cogent reason cannot be condoned. In our considered view, the cause shown by the State for delayed filing of the writ appeal is to say the least, wholly unsatisfactory and the reasons assigned in the application for condoning 350 days delay are not justified. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case as explained hereinabove, delay in filing the writ appeal cannot be condoned. Therefore, I.A. No. 6103/2011 for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the writ appeal is also dismissed as time barred. No order as to costs.