Allowed

The State of Tamilnadu v. N.Senthilkumaran

Madras HC25 Jul 2023CMP/2356/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for condonation of excessive delay (1117 days) in filing an appeal against a school education order was allowed. The court held the delay condonable as non-condonation may result in perpetuating illegality. The appeal is tentatively placed for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 1117 days in filing the appeal; application allowed and disposed of.

The State of Tamilnadu Vs N.Senthilkumaran — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CMP No.2356 of 2021 in WA No. SR 4417 of 2021

¶2

C.M.P.No.2356 of 2021 in W.A.No. SR 4417 of 2021

¶3

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶4

AND

¶5

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

¶6

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶7

This is an application for condonation of delay of 1117 days in filing the appeal.

¶8

Heard Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, assisted by Mr.K.Karthick Jeganath, learned Government Advocate for the applicants; and Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application and submits that no cause, much less sufficient cause, has been mentioned for condonation of the delay. The only reason given is that between March, 2020 and September, 2020, pandemic broke out and, therefore, further action could not be taken. The partial lockdown orders were operating. As such, with great difficulty, the applicants have collected the particulars of the respondent and filed writ appeal in

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

CMP No.2356 of 2021 in WA No. SR 4417 of 2021

¶13

December, 2020 with a delay of 1117 days.

¶14

The impugned judgment has been delivered by the learned Single Judge on 31.07.2017. The pandemic broke out in March, 2020.

¶15

Of course, the applicants could have filed the appeal earlier.

¶16

It needs to be considered that the applicants/appellants have

¶17

relied upon G.O.Ms.No.39, School Education (D1) Department, dated

¶18

21.03.2003 to contend that the post of Craft teacher cannot be converted to Music teacher.

¶19

At the time of considering the application for condonation of delay, we will also have to consider whether non-condoning the delay would result in illegality being carried out in perpetuity. The said aspect also needs to be considered. G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 21.03.2003 will have to be considered and quietus will have to be given with regard to the interpretation of the same.

¶20

We would hear the appeal itself at an earlier date.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

CMP No.2356 of 2021 in WA No. SR 4417 of 2021

¶24

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the delay of 1117 days caused in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is allowed and disposed of.

¶25

Place the appeal, after numbering, on 03.08.2023.

¶26

(S.V.G., C.J.) (P.D.A., J.) 25.07.2023

¶27

bbr

¶28

___________ Page 3 of 4_

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CMP No.2356 of 2021 in WA No. SR 4417 of 2021

¶31

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

¶32

bbr

¶33

CMP No.2356 of 2021 in WA No. SR 4417 of 2021

¶34

25.07.2023

¶35

___________ Page 4 of 4_

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The State of Tamilnadu v. N.Senthilkumaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamilnadu v. N.Senthilkumaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Vs The Member Secretary

S.Settu Vs The District Collector

State of Tamilnadu Vs T.Mangilal

E. Dilli Vs District Revenue Officer

R.Villavankothai Vs the Managing Director

M/s. Grt Silverwares Vs Union of India