AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
This Special Appeal is preferred along with an Application seeking condonation of 574 days’ delay i.e. of more than one and a half years. The
reasons furnished, for the inordinate delay in preferring the appeal, is internal correspondence between government officials regarding filing of the
appeal.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, to the application seeking condonation of delay, it is contended that the
delay in preferring the appeal is willful and deliberate, and mere correspondence would not justify condoning the inordinate delay of more than one and
a half years.
One of the grounds, on which this Court may consider condoning the delay on terms i.e. on payment of some amount to the respondent-writ
petitioner, is if the order under appeal is so patently illegal as to warrant interference in an intra-Court appeal.
What was under challenge in the writ petition was the order dated 15.03.2017 placing the respondent-writ petitioner under suspension on the ground
that, while the qualification for appointment as a teacher is a pass in the High School examination, the Prathama Certificate submitted by the
respondent-writ petitioner, at the time of his initial appointment in the year 1995, was not equivalent to that of a High School pass certificate.
In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has noted that the respondent-writ petitioner had not suppressed the fact that he possessed a
Prathama Certificate when he was initially appointed. The learned Single Judge has, while setting aside the order of suspension, directed the District
Education Officer, Primary Education, Udham Singh Nagar to conclude the inquiry within a period of three months.
As it does appear that the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed on the basis of the certificate of Prathama produced by him at the time of his
initial appointment in the year 1995, the learned Single Judge was, in our view, justified in interfering with the order of suspension, since it was passed
more than 22 years after the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as a teacher. The learned Single Judge has protected the interests of the
appellants herein in permitting them to conduct an inquiry and to, thereafter, take action in accordance with law.
We make it clear that, while the inquiry proceedings may go on and it is open to the appellants herein to take action in accordance with law
thereafter, the order under appeal, setting aside the order of suspension passed 22 years after the respondent-writ petitioner was initially appointed in
service, does not necessitate interference both on the grounds of inordinate delay of more than one and a half years and on merits.
The application, seeking condonation of delay, is dismissed. Consequently, the Special Appeal stands rejected. No costs.