JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 in W.P.No.35447/2017 (S-RES), whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere in the order dated 23.07.2017 passed by the Principal District Judge cum Educational Appellate Tribunal, Tumkur, in EAT No.10/2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, an employee of 3rd and 5th respondent-Educational Society, came to be dismissed from service vide order dated 30.09.2013, the dismissal from service was challenged by preferring a statutory appeal in EAT No.10/2014 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereafter ‘the Act’); the delayed presentation of the appeal was accompanied by an application in I.A.No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay; the Court of Principal District Judge cum Education Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘EAT’), vide order dated 23.06.2017, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal too. 3. Aggrieved by dismissal of statutory appeal by the EAT, the appellant filed W.P.No.35447/2017 (S-RES) which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that his plea as to ill-health by typhoid was an afterthought, the same having not been pleaded before the EAT and his other plea that he was too busy in three other collateral proceedings, would not constitute a justification. That is how, the appellant is in this intra-court appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was engaged in the legal battle before the Karnataka Human Rights Commission, the Karnataka SC/ST Commission and also before the Civil Court in O.S.No.236/2012; this apart, he was also suffering from typhoid; all these are demonstrable by records. That being so, both the EAT and the learned Single Judge have fallen in error in not condoning the delay, especially when his main appeal against dismissal was meritorious. 5. Having heard the Sri.A.R. Ramachandraiah, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Venkatesh Dodderi, learned Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and having perused the papers, are not persuaded to consider interference in this matter. 6. 5. Having heard the Sri.A.R. Ramachandraiah, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Venkatesh Dodderi, learned Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and having perused the papers, are not persuaded to consider interference in this matter. 6. The three legal battles which the learned counsel for the appellant mentions were instituted prior to his dismissal from service; the ill-health due to typhoid had apparently been for a short period and that illness shall not otherwise also come to his aid since it did not deter him from prosecuting his cases before the Civil Court and other two Commissions. 7. In any case, the prosecution of the case before the said three forums does not constitute any justification for brooking inordinate delay as involved in the present case. Indisputably, the appeal against the dismissal order dated 30.09.2013 was filed only on 04.08.2014 with a delay of more than 8 months. 8. Then the respondent No.5 was joined as a party at a later stage and hence, the appeal against him got delayed by a period of over three years. In the given circumstances, the EAT cannot be faulted in declining to condone the inordinate delay. 9. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 94 of the Act makes the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to appeals before the EAT, does not advance the case of the appellant any further. What is in question is not the existence of power to condone the delay, but its exercise. Existence of power per se is not a justification for its exercise. 10. In the present case, the EAT and the learned Single Judge have examined the matter on all relevant aspects and have refused to condone the delay on the sound rules of justice and reason, and the impugned orders call for no interference in this intra Court appeal. 11. Thus, the appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 12. The interlocutory application I.A.No.1/2018 stands disposed of.