Judgment Re: CAN 6291 of 2014 (Sec. 5) This mandamus appeal is directed against the judgement and/or order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 24th February, 2014 in W.P. No. 4031 (W) of 2014 at the instance of the appellant/writ petitioner. This Appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. There was 55 days delay in filing the instant appeal before this Court. The reason for the delay has been sufficiently explained by the appellant/petitioner in this application. Lawyer’s illness is the ground for such delay. Accordingly, the appellant prays for condonation of delay. While considering the appellant’s application for condonation of delay, we have also considered the merit of the appeal as we feel that a meritorious appeal should not be dismissed merely because of delay, provided however, reasonable explanation is given for the delay. Since we find that the delay has been reasonably explained by the petitioner, we condone the delay and hear out the appeal. The application for condonation of delay thus, stands allowed. Let the appeal now be registered. Re: M.A.T. 1083 of 2014 We find that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk on daily payment basis by the Managing Committee of the Uttar Sankarpur S.C. High School, District-Uttar Dinajpur on 24th September, 2000. He now claims regularisation of his service. It is submitted by Mr. De, Learned advocate appearing for the State-respondents that such appointment was given by the school authority without following the Recruitment Rules. No advertisement was issued for the said post inviting application from suitable candidates. No recruitment test was taken by the Managing Committee for selecting suitable candidate for the said post. Prior permission was also not taken from the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) by the Managing Committee for filling up any vacancy in the non-teaching post of the said school. The appointment of the writ petitioner even on causal basis, was not granted against any sanctioned post. Mr. De thus, contends that since the appointment was given to the petitioner through back door, he should vacate the office through back door. The Learned Trial Judge rejected the petitioner’s said writ petition by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka –vs- Uma Debi (III) reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 . The Learned Trial Judge rejected the petitioner’s said writ petition by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka –vs- Uma Debi (III) reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 . We have considered the submission of the Learned advocates of the parties as well as the principle as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said Uma Debi’s case. We hold that the protection which was given to the temporary employees by way of regularisation of their service in Uma Debi’s case, cannot be granted to the writ petitioner as the writ petitioner was not appointed against any permanent vacancy, the recruitment rules was not followed, and even the prior permission was not taken by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) by the Managing Committee for filling up the said vacancy. He was also not appointed with a scale in the concerned post. That apart, there is no scheme for regularisation of service of such casual daily rated employee in the school. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order by which the writ petitioner’s prayer for regularisation of his service, was turned down by the Learned Trial Judge. The appeal thus, stands dismissed. The order passed by the Learned Trial Judge which is impugned in the appeal, is confirmed. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, no further order need be passed on the stay application which is deemed to be disposed of. The application for stay being CAN 6292 of 2014 is thus, deemed to be disposed of.