Bineeta Bhatia vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

This appeal is directed against order dated 04.10.2024, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 9301 of 2024, whereby learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appointment was being sought pursuant to the select list issued in the year 2016, the order rejecting the representation was passed in the year 2020 and as the petition was filed without any cogent explanation for delay and consequently dismissed the same.

¶12

The present appeal is also barred by 163 days.

¶13

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶14

In the affidavit in support of the application, it is, inter alia , claimed that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation due to petitioner's poor financial condition, she was unable to immediately arrange the necessary funds required for obtaining legal advice for filing the appeal and therefore, the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional.

¶15

Further submissions have been made that the appellant was unaware of the legal remedy of filing special appeal and was under a bonafide belief

¶16

SPLAD No. 165 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

that no further recourse was available after dismissal of the writ petition.

¶19

It is claimed that on consulting a well wisher in February, 2025, she was apprised of her right to file special appeal, whereafter the appeal has been filed without any further delay and therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned.

¶20

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the conduct of the appellant, since the very beginning, has been that of negligence and the explanation sought to be advanced apparently is made up and therefore, the application as well as the appeal deserves dismissal.

¶21

8. We have considered the submissions made.

¶22

A perusal of the record indicates that the appellant was accorded appointment as a Teacher on 06.07.2016 and was required to join by 16.07.2016. It was claimed that for the first time, she presented herself for joining on 20.07.2016, however, she was not permitted to join on account of the stipulation in the order of appointment regarding automatic cancellation of the order on failure to join by 16.07.2016.

¶23

The petitioner approached this Court by filing Service Single No. 36806 of 2019 on account of denial to permit joining in the year 2019, i.e., after three years. The said writ petition came to be decided on 03.01.2020 requiring the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner within a period of three months.

¶24

The respondents, pursuant to the order dated 03.01.2020, passed the order impugned in the present writ petition on 02.06.2020 rejecting her prayer to permit joining. Whereafter, after passage of over four years, the present writ petition was filed in the year 2024 seeking to question the validity of order dated 02.06.2020. As a result, the challenge to the denial to permit joining post the time stipulated in the order of appointment was questioned first after a gap of three years and thereafter, after a gap of four years, in all after a gap of seven long years.

¶25

In those circumstances, the learned Single Judge, as noticed hereinbefore, on account of unexplained delay and laches in filing the writ

¶26

SPLAD No. 165 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

petition, dismissed the writ petition.

¶29

The over all conduct of the petitioner, as noticed hereinbefore, ever since the appointment was accorded to her/she was permitted to join pursuant to the order of appointment, it is apparent that she has not at all been serious qua her claim/rights and has been intermittently approaching the Court for ventilating her grievances/seeking relief first after a gap of three years in the year 2019 then after a gap of four years in 2024 and now with a delay of 163 days.

¶30

The assertion made pertaining to the financial condition and lack of knowledge about the remedy of filing special appeal appears to be only lame excuses for the sake of seeking condonation of delay without any basis/further particulars.

¶31

In view of the over all fact situation, as noticed hereinbefore, the appellant has failed to make out a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the special appeal. No case for condonation of delay is made out.

¶32

The application seeking condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶33

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶34

May 18, 2026 Mukesh Pal

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bineeta Bhatia v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bineeta Bhatia v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maidul Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare and Waqf Lko. and 4 Others

Chandan Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ajay Chauhan U.P. P.W.D. Lko and Another

Putai vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Panchayatraj Lko. and 5 Others

Syed Ali Hasnain Abidi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planing Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Renu Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare U.P. Lko. and Others

Pharmacy Council of India Thru. Registrar-Cum-Secretary vs Asbd College of Pharmacy Thru. Its Secretary , Vivek Kumar Singh and 2 Others