1 2025:CGHC:10196-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 142 of 2025 1 - Mahendra Kumar Gourha S/o Shri T.P.Gauraha Aged About 54 Years R/o Kilaward, Juna Bilaspur Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Bilaspur Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For appellant : Mr. Roshan Dubey, Advocate along with Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Bagehl, Dy.GA (for the State) Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03. 03.2025 2 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration, the I.A. No. 01 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 11.12.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the WPS No. 7141/2016 with the following prayer:- “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Division bench may kindly be pleased to call for the records and thereafter impugned order be set aside passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 11.12.2024, and matter may remitted back for deciding the same on merits, to meet the ends of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner’s case for appointment on the post of physical teacher has been refused. Then the petitioner has also filed review application before the same authority with a prayer to review his own order, but the same was also dismissed. Then immediately, thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court challenging the legality, validity and propriety of above orders and vide order dated 11.12.2024, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground of delay. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the petitioner/ writ appellant with the aforesaid prayer. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the petitioner is from beginning making representations to the authorities concerned and when no steps were taken thereafter he forced to file application before the respondent No. 3 and the respondent no. 3 instead of providing justice to the petitioner dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. It is further submitted by him that the learned Single Judge at initial stage dismissed the petition on the ground of delay but keeping pending for such a long period i.e. 9 years and dismissed the same even without seeking reply to the state 3 which has caused prejudice to the petitioner hence this appeal should be allowed and the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 may be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has filed his case before the Additional Commissioner after 21 years and the delay of 21 years in filing of the petitioner’s case before the concerned authority is very long and therefore, it has rightly been rejected on the same ground.. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, the learned Single Judge has observed that:- 5. The dispute relates to the appointment of one Pushpendra Singh to the post of PT Teacher by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, against which the petitioner filed a representation before the Addl. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division only in the year 2015 and without impleading Pushpendra Singh as a party, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-P/2) holding that it is barred by 21 years and the review case was also dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2015 (Annexure-P/1). In my considered opinion, since there is a delay of 21 years in approaching the Court, the petitioner’s representation has rightly been dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner and the review case has also rightly been dismissed. 6. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 4 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost (S) Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.05 10:50:53 +0530