- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for parties.
(2.) THERE is delay of 1006 days in filing the special appeal. Counsel for appellants has filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein it is stated that the registry has calculated the limitation treating this appeal as against the order dated 19.5.2008, whereby the writ petition was allowed, whereas the appellants have preferred this intra court appeal against the order dated 3.8.2010 whereby review petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. THEREfore, the delay comes only for about 246 days. He further submitted that the said delay has been properly explained, therefore, the delay be condoned. The application has been contested by the respondent by filing written reply to the application. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that the appeal has been preferred against the order rejecting review petition. The review petition was dismissed on 3.8.2010. Appeal has been preferred on 20.4.2011. The appellants have tried to explain the delay from the date of order rejecting review petition till the date of filing of appeal in paras 5 to 10 of the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act, which are reproduced as under :- 5-That the certified copy of the order dated 3-8-2010 was prepared on 20-8-2010 and the officer in charge of the case obtained it on 25-8-2010 and after obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 3-8-2010 and after considering the complete material and effect of the order under challenge, the matter was sent for further proceeding to the Directorate of Education, Bikaner on 25-8-2010. The Directorate of Education, Bikaner sent the case for further instructions and guidance to the Government of Rajasthan on 11-10-2010. The Joint Legal Remembrancer vide letter dated 30-11-2010 wrote a letter to the District Education officer, Secondary Legal, Jaipur for sending the visible copy of order dated 3-8-2010 for sending it to the Directorate Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. The District Education Officer, Secondary Legal, Jaipur made available the visible copy of order on 1-12-2010 and after it, the Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated 18-1-2011 convened a meeting of Standing Committee for implementation of the cases as per policy and after the decision of the committee, a statement of proceeding of the committee, which was convened on 21-1-2011, was issued on 31-1-2011 and a decision of filing the D.B. Special Appeal in the matter was taken. 6-That on the basis of decision of filing the D.B. Special Appeal in the matter, the Government of Rajasthan granted permission for filing the appeal vide order dated 18-2-2011 and appointed the officer in charge accordingly. 7-That according to the direction of the Government of Rajasthan, the Directorate of Secondary Education, Bikaner vide order dated 28-2-2011 directed the Dy. Director Secondary Education, Jaipur to file the D.B. Special Appeal against the order dated 3-8-2010. 8-That the Dy. Director, Secondary, Jaipur, received the order on 14-3-2011 and after receiving the directions, he collected the material and the file was handed over to the additional Advocate General Shri Nasir Ali Naqvi, who after examining the matter, directed the concerned officer in charge to contact the Government Counsel for filing the special appeal being a departmental Government Counsel. 9-That the matter was then handed over to the undersigned Govt. Counsel. 10-That soon after receiving the file from the Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur, filed the special appeal without any further loss of time." From the above averments made in the application, we are of the view that explanation furnished by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not sufficient. In these circumstances, we find that no sufficient cause is made out so as to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. That apart, we have examined the matter on merits. The sole controversy in the present case is with regard to certificate (Annexure 5) issued by the Rajshree Mahavidhyalay, Alwar. In case, this certificate is treated as of State level, then respondent is entitled for three bonus marks and appeal is to be dismissed. In case, this certificate is treated as of district level, then the petitioner is entitled for one bonus mark and State appeal is to be allowed. The criteria to determine the certificate as of State or District level, has been prescribed in circular dated 6.8.1998. The said circular has been considered/examined by the learned Single Judge and he came to a conclusion that certificate (Annex.5) issued by the respondent is of State level and petitioner is entitled to 3 bonus marks. We have examined the certificate and the circular and we find that the reasons, assigned by the learned Single Judge in this regard, are absolutely legal and justified. The learned Single Judge has observed that the only objection in the reply to the writ petition was that certificate is not certified by Secretary (sports), whereas the original certificate was produced along with rejoinder to the reply and from the certificate, it is clear that it was verified by Secretary (sports) on the back of it. From the certificate, it is also clear that tournament took place in Jhunjhunu district, whereas the petitioner belongs to Alwar district and he participated in State level tournament. Therefore, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that it is the State level certificate and writ petitioner is entitled for three bonus marks.
(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that while considering the review petition, the learned Single Judge did not consider the same on merits, but dismissed the same only on the basis that respondent has been given appointment. THE argument of the learned counsel for appellants does not appear to be correct. We have examined the order passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the review petition and we find that the review petition has been considered on merits also. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this intra court appeal. Consequently, the intra court appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation as well as on merits.;