Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an intra-court writ appeal filed by the National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, challenging a Single Judge's order that allowed a writ petition filed by a Physical Director (Senior Grade) working as Assistant Professor. The writ petitioner had challenged an order dated 30.03.2017 that classified him as non-academic staff and fixed his superannuation age at 62 years instead of 65 years. The Single Judge, in W.P(MD)No.9309 of 2017 dated 16.11.2023, held that Physical Directors are teaching faculty and entitled to superannuation at 65 years. Aggrieved by this order, the NIT authorities filed a writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, but it was filed with a delay of 299 days and with defects. The Registry returned the papers on 08.10.2024; they were represented only on 20.12.2024 and returned again on 24.01.2025, resulting in a further delay of 116 days in representation. The appellants filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Order IV Rule 9(4) of the Appellate Side Rules to condone this delay. The appellants contended that the original order copy was misplaced, causing delay in filing, and that the subsequent representation delay was due to time needed to trace case documents and furnish inputs to counsel. The court found these reasons vague and unsatisfactory. It noted that the Single Judge had specifically observed that Physical Directors cannot be treated as administrative staff because the Education Policy had changed and Physical Education formed part of the curriculum throughout the country. The Ministry of Human Resource Development had clarified to NIT Warangal that Physical Education Directors recorded in REC and presently re-designated as NIT continue as teaching faculty, with superannuation age of 65 years. The court also observed that the State Litigation Policy had not been properly adhered to, as the appeal was filed without assigning any reason and the delay was not properly explained. Condoning the delay would cause hardship to the first respondent who had entered appearance through counsel by filing a caveat. Finding no sufficient cause for the delay and no merit in the appeal grounds, the court dismissed both the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and the Writ Appeal at SR stage, with no costs.
Headnote
A) Limitation Law - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Appellate Side Rules, Order IV Rule 9(4) - The appellants sought condonation of 116 days delay in representing appeal papers returned for defects, citing misplacement of original order and time needed to trace documents. The court found the reasons vague and unsatisfactory, noting that the registry returned the papers on 08.10.2024, they were represented only on 20.12.2024, and returned again on 24.01.2025. Held that absence of sufficient cause for delay in representation warranted dismissal of the condonation petition (Paras 3-5). B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Superannuation Age of Physical Directors - Letters Patent, Clause 15 - The Single Judge held that Physical Directors cannot be treated as administrative staff because the Education Policy changed and Physical Education forms part of the curriculum, relying on MHRD clarification to NIT Warangal that Physical Education Directors continue as teaching faculty with superannuation age of 65 years. The appeal against this order was filed with delay and without merit. Held that the grounds raised in the intra-court appeal were unmeritorious and did not warrant interference with the Single Judge's order (Para 5). C) Administrative Law - State Litigation Policy - Diligence of State Entities - Appellate Side Rules, Order IV Rule 9(4) - The appellants, being an educational institution of the State, failed to adhere to the State Litigation Policy by filing an appeal without assigning any reason and not properly explaining the delay. Condoning the delay would cause hardship to the first respondent who had entered appearance through caveat. Held that non-adherence to State Litigation Policy coupled with unexplained delay and unmeritorious grounds justified dismissal of both the civil miscellaneous petition and the writ appeal at SR stage (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 116 days in representing the returned writ appeal papers should be condoned, and whether the intra-court writ appeal filed with a delay of 299 days and further representation delay should be dismissed at SR stage for lack of sufficient cause and merit
Final Decision
Both the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and the Writ Appeal at SR stage were dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause
- vague reasons for delay are insufficient
- State Litigation Policy compliance is mandatory
- Physical Education Directors in NIT are teaching faculty entitled to superannuation at 65 years
- writ appeal filed with unexplained delay and unmeritorious grounds liable to be dismissed at SR stage
