Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) Re: CAN 6450 of 2017. CAN 6450 of 2017 is an application at the instance of the appellants in M.A.T. 1041 of 2017, seeking condonation of 62 days' delay in presentation of the memorandum of appeal.
(2.) At the outset, Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate representing the respondents 5 and 6 objects to the maintainability of the appeal itself. Referring to the vakalatnama annexed to the memorandum of appeal, it is submitted that the State and the Director of Madras Education (hereafter the Director) not having executed any vakalatnama in favour of Mr. Subhrangshu Panda, learned advocate-on-record for the appellants, the appeal is not maintainable. He has referred to a particular provision in the Legal Remembrancer's Manual (hereafter the Manual) to contend that unless the Legal Remembrancer appoints an advocate to represent the State, Mr. Subhrangshu Panda had no authority on acceptance of the vakalatnama executed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad (hereafter the D.I.) to file the appeal, inter alia, including the State and the Director in the array of appellants without such appointment made by the Legal Remembrancer.
(3.) We have perused the relevant provision of the Manual. Although Mr. Chatterjee is right in his contention that the State and the Director, in the absence of any authorisation having been given in favour of Mr. Panda could not have been included in the array of respondents, the D.I. independently has a right to challenge the order under appeal and, therefore, the appeal at his instance is well-high maintainable.;