2026:JHHC:16357-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 37 of 2026 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, (Primary Education), Government of Jharkhand, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, (Primary Education), Government of Jharkhand, H.E.C., Dhurwa, Ranchi (Now School Education and Literacy Department, MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Director, Human Resources Development Department, (Primary Education), Government of Jharkhand, H.E.C., Dhurwa, Ranchi (Now School Education and Literacy Department, MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa … … … Appellants Versus 1. Awadh Bihari Mishra, aged about 61 years, son of Late Rajeshwar Mishra, resident of 31, JharnaTola, Village Redma, South Medninagar, Palamu, P.O. - GLA College, Baralota, P.S. - Town, Medninagar, District - Palamu, (Jharkhand). 2. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Son of Ram Naresh Dubey, Resident of Village - Khagauri, P.O. - Lagma, P.S. - Garhwa, District Garhwa, (Jharkhand). 3. Yogendra Nath Choubey, Son of Late Shyam Kishore Choubey, Resident of Village Manghigawan, P.O. Manjhigawan, P.S. Bhawnathpur, District Garhwa, (Jharkhand). 4. Umesh Kumar Son of Sri Ram Krishna Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village & P.O. - Makari, P.S. - Bhawanathpur, District - Garhwa, (Jharkhand) … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III --------- 02/Dated: 08.06.2026 I.A. No. 10447 of 2024 2026:JHHC:16357-DB -2- 1. This I.A. has been filed to ignore the office objections. 2. Considering the averments in the I.A., we dispense with the clearance of the office objections. This I.A. is disposed of. I.A. No. 10729 of 2025 3. This I.A. is allowed and I.A. No. 10292 of 2024 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh I.A. I.A. No. 10738 of 2025 with L.P.A. No. 37 of 2026 4. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 379 days in instituting this Letters Patent Appeal. We have perused the cause shown in the I.A. and we do not think that such cause can be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 379 days. Averments in the I.A. shows that a decision was taken to file this appeal only after contempt proceedings were initiated for non-compliance with the order which is impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. After that, the I.A. simply refers to the movement of files from one table to the other. The application is quite vague and therefore, the cause shown, cannot be regarded as sufficient. 6. In the case of Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another, (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the law of limitation binds everybody equally including the Government and the defence by the Government impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. 7. Recently, in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that “administrative lethargy and laxity” can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble 2026:JHHC:16357-DB -3- Supreme Court in para 261 observed “we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.” 8. In similar circumstances, this Court refused to condone delay of 306 days in instituting L.P.A. No. 752 of 2023 (The State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Chandan Kumar Prasad). 9. Therefore, for all the above reasons, we dismiss this I.A. 10. As a result of dismissal of this I.A., the accompanying L.P.A. No. 37 of 2026 will not survive and is disposed of. No costs. 11. Rest pending Interlocutory Applications do not survive and are disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 08, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 10.06.2026