AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Heard Mr Akash Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, learned AC to AAG-III for the State, and Mr Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the JSCC.
I.A. No. 1942 of 2026 seeks condonation of delay of 555 days in preferring this review petition.
We have perused the averments in the I.A. as well as the record accompanying the review petition. We are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone this inordinate delay. The brief reasons for this conclusion follow.
The review is against the order dated 23.04.2024 by which L.P.A. No. 48 of 2024 preferred by the review petitioner against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 08.01.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 5012 of 2019 was dismissed.
Against the order dated 24.03.2024, the review petitioner preferred an SLP, which was dismissed on 14.08.2024. Up to this date, the explanation for the delay could have been construed liberally.
However, the review petition was filed only on 17.12.2025, i.e. after almost 16 months from the date of dismissal of the SLP against the order dated 23.04.2024, for which review is now sought. No sufficient cause has been shown for this.
The explanation is that the review petitioner had lost all hope, but his hopes revived upon learning that some candidates with lower marks than the review petitioner had been appointed under the EBC-I and BC-II categories.
Apart from the fact that the above reason hardly constitutes sufficient cause, we must note that the review petitioner has not even elaborated on this position that candidates with lesser marks were given appointments. Neither are any documents produced, nor is any precise date indicated for acquiring such knowledge.
The further explanation regarding sickness, which is again vague and unverifiable, or the assertion that some time was spent collecting various affidavits from the earlier counsel, can hardly constitute sufficient cause for instituting this review petition after an overall delay of 555 days.
This Petitioner had already filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, presumably after collecting all documents and case papers. Such vague and unverifiable reasons inspire no confidence and cannot be readily accepted. Since no sufficient cause is shown, the I.A. seeking condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.
However, Mr Akash Ajit Kumar submitted that the review petitioner has a strong prima facie case and a good chance of success in the instant case.
At the stage of deciding an application seeking condonation of delay, the court must not go into the merits of the matter. In any event, on perusal of the learned Single Judge’s order dated 08.01.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 5012 of 2019 and the Appeal Court’s order dated 23.04.2024, we cannot readily agree that the review petitioner has made out a very strong prima facie case on merits. The basic contention that candidates with lower marks were appointed has not been established. The orders allegedly uploaded on the website, on which this statement is based, have also not been produced.
Mr Piprawall submitted that selections were earlier made district-wise. The Court struck down that method of selection, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld that strike-down. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted limited protection, particularly to candidates from the scheduled districts, so their appointments would not be disturbed. Mr Piprawall submitted that the review petitioner cannot rely on such records without appreciating the context.
Accordingly, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The I.A. seeking condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
Accordingly, the accompanying review petition will not survive and is disposed of.