Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010100912025 2025:GAU-AS:14546-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1706/2025 PRATIMA CHETIA D/O. PHANI CHETIA, R/O. CHETIA GAON, HARHI SAPATIA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787058. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 OTHERS REP BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM. EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT GOVT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 5:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 ASSAM. Page No.# 2/6 6:HARHI COLLEGE LAKHIMPUR REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL 7:PARINITA BORAH W/O. SRI MUKTA SAIKIA VILL.- BATAMARI P/O. GHURAMARA DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787032 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G G GOGOI, MR. J I BORBHUIYA,MR. S J SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : , SC, FINANCE,SC, HIGHER EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 27.10.2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J) 1. Heard Mr. J.I. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant /appellant seeking condonation of the delay of 1305 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4041/2019. 3. The writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.4041/2019 was filed by the respondent No.7. The case of the respondent No.7 before the learned Single Judge was that she was appointed as an Assistant Professor of the subject Assamese in Harhi College on 30.08.2003. The present applicant Smti. Pratima Chetia was also appointed to a similar Page No.# 3/6 post on 15.11.2005. It was her grievance that, though three posts were provincialised including the post held by the present applicant, her claim was ignored. 4. The learned Single Judge by order dated 10.09.2021 passed in WP(C) No.4041/2019 held that a legal right had accrued in favour of the writ petitioner/respondent No.7 herein for provincialization but such legal right had been refused by the respondents without any acceptable reason and accordingly, a direction was issued to the Director of Higher Education to pass a consequential order for provincialization of the service of the writ petitioner/respondent No.7 herein, in terms of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. 5. It was further provided in the judgment that if such an order adversely affects any of the persons whose service has already been provincialised, the Director shall do the same by following due process of law and by giving appropriate notice to such person who may be affected. 6. Admittedly, the present applicant was not made a party respondent in the aforesaid writ proceeding. 7. Be that as it may, in compliance of such order, the Director of Higher Education, Assam passed a speaking order dated 20.02.2025, amongst others, withdrawing the provincialization of service of the present applicant and services of the writ petitioner/respondent No.7 herein was provincialized as Assistant Professor in the said department. 8. Being aggrieved by such speaking order, the applicant Page No.# 4/6 preferred a writ petition, registered as WP(C) No.1200/2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge under its order dated 01.05.2025, holding it to be not maintainable for the reason that such issue has already been decided in WP(C) No.4041/2019. 9. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the applicant has preferred a Writ Appeal registered as WA No.176/2025. 10. The primary ground for condonation of delay in preferring the Writ Appeal is that the applicant was not a party in the proceeding of WP(C) No.4041/2019. She could learn about such an order only when she was served with the speaking order. Thereafter, she immediately challenged the speaking order; however, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. Thereafter, she immediately filed the two Writ Appeals, one against the judgment and order dated 10.09.2021 passed in WP(C) No.4041/2019, and the other against the judgment and order dated 01.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No.1200/2025. Therefore, it is contended that there was no deliberate lapse on the part of the petitioner and accordingly, the delay is required to be condoned. 11. Mr. A.C Borbora, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.7, though fairly submits that he will not seriously object to the condonation of delay, however, contends that the petitioner was put to due notice as regards the order dated 10.09.2021 passed in WP(C) No.4041/2019 inasmuch as she was called for a hearing by a communication dated 05.09.2024, to which Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the applicant submits that such communication was never served upon her. Page No.# 5/6 12. The length of the delay is indeed a relevant factor to be considered when deciding an application for condonation of delay. However, when sufficient causes are shown, the discretion vested in the Courts to condone delay is to be exercised, though sufficient cause shall not mean a mere explanation given superficially. 13. In the case in hand, what we have seen is that the applicant was not a party to the writ proceeding and the speaking order withdrawing the service of the petitioner was made based on such order. The applicant could learn about such an order when the speaking order passed and the provincialization of the applicant was withdrawn. Immediately, she filed the WP(C) No.1200/2025 assailing such speaking order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was not diligent or that the delay was intentional. 14. Though Mr. Borbora, learned counsel, has objected that the applicant was put to notice of the hearing before the Director in terms of the judgment and order dated WP(C) No.4041/2019, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that the same was served upon the applicant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected appeal within time in assailing the judgment and order dated 10.09.2021 in WP(C) No.4041/2019, inasmuch as she preferred the other writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 01.05.2025, within the prescribed period of limitation. 15. Having considered the explanation tendered by the applicant, this court is satisfied that the delay occasioned in preferring the connected Writ Appeal was neither deliberate nor actuated by Page No.# 6/6 negligence but resulted from bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. In the absence of gross latches or mala fide intention attributable to the applicant, this court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits. 16. In the facts of the present case, the explanation furnished inspires confidence, and no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the respondent by such delay. 17. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and having satisfied that the causes shown are sufficient to condone the delay, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. Ordered accordingly. 18. Registry to register the connected Writ Appeal and list the same on 07.01.2026, if there is no defect in filing. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant