Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 856 (HP)

Champa Devi v. State of H. P.

2017-07-26

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. The sole ground on which impugned order so passed by Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, dated 16.03.2011, stands assailed before this Court by way of this petition is that the learned Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petition by holding that the same was barred by limitation rather than adjudicating the same on merit. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. It is not in dispute that appointment letter was issued in favour of the selected candidate i.e. respondent No. 4, on 14.08.2017. Para 12 of the Policy pertaining to appointment of Anganwari Workers provides that any person aggrieved by appointment of Anganwari Worker can within 15 days of declaration of the result assail it by way of filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. It is also not in dispute that this Court in number of cases has held that the 15 days period so mentioned in the policy for filing the appeal cannot be relaxed by condoning the delay, if any, in filing the appeal. In CWP No. 1096 of 2010, titled as Raksha Devi vs. State of H.P. and others and the connected matters, decided on 17.05.2010, this Court has held as under. “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 Policy 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 of 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.” 3. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority demonstrates that said Authority dismissed the appeal by holding the same to be time barred on the ground that the result under challenge was declared on 14.08.2007 whereas appeal was filed on 30th of August, 2007 i.e. beyond the period of limitation. 4. In my considered view, findings so returned by the learned Appellate Authority cannot be faulted with. 4. In my considered view, findings so returned by the learned Appellate Authority cannot be faulted with. It is not in dispute that result qua appointment of respondent No. 4 as Anganwari Worker was declared on 14.08.2007. Appeal admittedly to assail the same was to be filed within the period of 15 days from the date of declaration of the result. Now if limitation of 15 days is to be counted from 15th of August, 2007, then the same expires on 29th of August, 2007. 5. The contention of Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner that appeal was filed on 29th of August, 2007 and not on 30th of August, 2007 is not supported by any document on record. Petitioner has not placed on record anything, from which it could be inferred that the appeal in fact was filed on 29th of August, 2007 and not on 30th of August, 2007, as has been held by the learned Appellate Authority. In the absence of there being any contrary material on record, there is no occasion for this Court to disbelieve the finding returned by learned Appellate Authority that the appeal in fact was filed on 30th of August, 2007. In view of law declared by this Court that no appeal beyond the period of 15 days as prescribed in the policy can be entertained by the Appellate Authority, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It cannot be said that learned Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. In view of discussion above, as there is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. No orders as to costs.