2026:JHHC:17272-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 657 of 2025 With I.A. No. 9457 of 2025 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi ... ... Appellants Versus 1. Banani Gupta, W/o Late A.K. Gupta, R/o Sambhavi Enclave, Flat No. 101, J.C. Mallick Road Hirapur, PO & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad 2. Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, through its Vice- Chancellor, Hazaribagh 3. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh 4. Binod Bihar Mahto Koilanchal University, through its Vice- Chancellor, Dhanbad 5. The Registrar, Binod Bihari Mahto Koilanchal University, Dhanbad ... … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants : Mr. J.F. Toppo, GA-V For the Respondent No. 1 : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate Ms. Shalini Kumari, Advocate Ms. Jagriti, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate Miss Ishani Sen, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ----- Order No. 02 Dated: 15.06.2026 I.A. No. 9457 of 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This I.A. was originally filed to seek condonation of the delay of 170 days on the mistaken premise that this was the delay. 3. However, the office pointed out that the delay was 310 days and, therefore, a correction was made in the application to indicate that there is a delay of 310 days. The so-called explanation for 2026:JHHC:17272-DB 2 this delay is set out in paragraphs nos. 5 to 14. This explanation, even if accepted, cannot constitute any sufficient cause. 4. Although the impugned order was passed on 05.08.2024 and the decision to file the appeal was taken on 08.10.2024, the appeal was filed only on 11.07.2025. The explanation is mostly the movement of the files from one table to another and from one official to another. It is stated that some time was spent in obtaining a legal opinion and preparing the appeal memo. 5. Based on such routine bureaucratic procedures, the 310-day delay in instituting this appeal cannot be condoned. The applicants are aware of the period of limitation prescribed by the legislature. That period cannot be ignored or trifled away by simply alleging that files had to be moved from table to table and opinions had to be obtained from various law officers. Since the State is aware of the limitation period prescribed by the legislature, it is imperative that the State take immediate steps to ensure that the appeals can be filed within the prescribed limitation period. 6. In this case, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown. In similar matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declined to condone the delay. 7. We referred to the decisions in Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another, reported in (2012)3 SCC 563, Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR, reported 2026:JHHC:17272-DB 3 in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489 and Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, and by applying the principles laid down therein to the facts of the present case, we dismiss the interim application seeking condonation of delay. 8. Consequently, the accompanying appeal and I.As, if any therein, do not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 15, 2026 Manish/Ritesh Uploaded on 17.06.2026