- (1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.08.2006 passed in W.P(S) NO.3807/2004 which is time barred by 949 days for which an application for condonation of delay also has been filed. The averments in the application indicate that the delay occurred on account of the fact that the concerned file travelled from one department to other seeking legal opinion as to whether an appeal should be preferred or a review was fit to be filed and consequently, a review petition also was filed which has been dismissed. It has been also stated that the appellant-State had approached the Advocate in the Supreme Court to file S.L.P and they were advised to approach the High Court by way of a review petition and hence for the aforesaid reasons, the delay of 949 days has occurred.
(2.) Although we are not satisfied with the explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay, yet we consider it just and appropriate to permit the counsel for the appellant to argue the matter on merit instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay merely to obviate miscarriage of justice to the appellant-State if thereby any.
(3.) Learned counsel therefore, assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and submitted that the impugned order has already been complied since the respondents have already been re-designated as Demonstrators. Obviously, the appellant-State had no choice than to re-designate the respondents herein on the post of Demonstrator as it is clear from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the case of the respondents herein was similar to that of the cases of the petitioners in CWJC NO.387/95 and as they were entitled to a similar relief as the learned Single Judge had ordered for considering the cases of the respondents herein also in the light of the judgment referred to by the petitioners/respondents herein and on the analogy of the cases of the persons who had been granted benefit.;