Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1840 (HP)

Minakshi v. State of H. P

2014-12-08

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. An appeal was preferred before the learned Deputy Commissioner, by respondent No.6 herein assailing the selection and appointment of the petitioner herein as Anganwari helper. The appeal preferred by respondent No.6 herein before the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, was time barred, hence, it was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in the preferment of appeal at the instance of respondent No.6. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, while adjudicating the application filed by respondent No.6 herein for condoning the delay in the preferment of an appeal at her instance against the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari worker had on consideration of the material laid before him condoned the delay of two months. Obviously it enlarged the time prescribed by the apt guidelines for the filing of an appeal. The Appellate Authority is not bestowed or conferred any power under the apt guidelines to condone the delay in the event an appeal is filed beyond the period prescribed in the apt guidelines. Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order rendered in Annexure P- 5 is beyond the jurisdictional competence of the learned Deputy Commissioner. The said contention has leverage and force in view of the apt guidelines prescribing a period of 15 days for the filing of an appeal which period is to be reckoned from the date of issuance of letter of appointment to the appointee. The relevant/apt guidelines as formulated by respondent No.1 do not in them contemplate or vest jurisdiction, power or authority in the appellate authority to extend, condone or enlarge the period of time prescribed in them for the filing of an appeal. The relevant/apt guidelines as formulated by respondent No.1 do not in them contemplate or vest jurisdiction, power or authority in the appellate authority to extend, condone or enlarge the period of time prescribed in them for the filing of an appeal. In other words, the period of 15 days prescribed in the apt guidelines for the filing of an appeal before the appellate authority against the selection and appointment of a person as an Anganwari helper reckonable from the date of issuance of appointment letter is an inflexible period or in case an appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period the same is jurisdictionally not maintainable, it entails dismissal, besides rendering the act of the appellate authority while taking to rely upon the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act which empowers courts of law alone to condone delay which the appellate authority who rendered annexure P-5 is not in condoning the delay to be wholly untenable. Consequently, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, while having adjudicated an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred before him for condoning the delay in the institution of an appeal before him challenging/assailing the selection/appointment of the petitioner herein as Anganwari helper and having recorded findings therein in favour of respondent No.6 has committed a jurisdictional error. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside. The above conclusion is supported by a judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court comprised in Annexure P-4, relevant portion of which is extracted hereinafter:- ?Another legal contention is as to whether the Appellate Authority has power to condone delay in filing appeal. The guidelines provide a period of 15 days for filing an appeal. Being a statutory authority, in terms of the police guidelines, the Appellate Authority does not have the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. No power is conferred also in the guidelines for condonation delay. Therefore, he cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, it has only to be dismissed, since the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.? 2. No power is conferred also in the guidelines for condonation delay. Therefore, he cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, it has only to be dismissed, since the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.? 2. Even otherwise, considering the fact as evident from a perusal of annexure P-5, of the petitioner having come to be appointed on 22.02.2013 obviously, then the period of 15 days envisaged in the apt guidelines for filing of appeal commenced/arose therefrom. However, respondent No.6 filed an RTI application beyond the period of 15 days, inasmuch as on 18.3.2013. In face thereof and when even the copy of the appointment letter was sought by respondent No.6 herein beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the apt guidelines for filing of an appeal and when the said delay remains unexplained, it was wholly in sagacious for the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, to condone the delay. 3. Accordingly, I find merit in the writ petition and the impugned order is set-aside. No costs.