MC 2518/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI By making this Misc. application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, th e applicant has sought for condonation of delay of 280 days in preferring appeal against the judgment and order, dated 31.10.2009, passed in WP(C) No. 5615/2002 , whereby the opposite party No. 4 herein has been held to be senior to the appl icant. Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. M. R. Pat hak, learned Standing counsel, Department of Education, Government of Assam, app earing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. U. K. Nair, lear ned counsel for opposite party No. 4. Explaining the causes for the delay, the applicant has stated, in brief, thus: Though the judgment, in WP(C) 5615/2002, was pronounced on 31.10.2009 and , in the ordinary course, the period of limitation was to expire on 30.11.2009, the applicant remained wholly unaware of the order, dated 31.10.2009, aforementi oned and the applicant came to know about the said order, on 18.03.2010, only, w hen an order was issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, in terms of the order, dated 31.10.2009, aforementioned, declaring the opposite party No. 4 herein as senior to the present applicant. The applicant claims that due to the fact that her mother-in-law was bed-ridden, because of her old age, the applicant had to take care of her mother-in-law in every manner, including giving her bathe and changing her wearing apparels, she could not contact her counsel soon after the judgment was delivered and it was o nly on 27.05.2010 that she sent her brother to Sri Kulajit Medhi, a practicing l awyer in the Gauhati High Court, and requested the said lawyer to apply for obta ining a certified copy of the order, dated 31.10.2009. The certified copy of th e judgment was obtained on 29.05.2010 and the applicant was advised by her couns el to file a writ appeal against the said judgment and order. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had received the advise, as af orementioned, she could not come to Guwahati to file appeal inasmuch as her moth er-in-law expired on 04.07.2010, at the age of 91 years, and could come to Guwah ati on 31.07.2010 only after the Shradhha ceremony and other religious and socia l rites were over and that she could come to Guwahati and meet her counsel on 08 .08.2010 and then only she could come to know from her counsel that her counsel’ s father suffered from bran haemorrhage on 23.06.2010 and had to remain, therefo re, in hospital, from 23.06.2010 to 14.07.2010. It was in such circumstances, s ubmits the learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant came to Guwahat i on 05.09.2010 with the relevant records, handed over the same to her counsel, the appeal was drafted and the same was, eventually, filed on 09.09.2010. While considering the present application, seeking condonation of delay of as many as 280 days, it needs to be noted that the applicant was a party to t he writ petition. There is, however, no explanation as to why the applicant did not come to know about the outcome of the writ petition. There is not even asse rtion, in the application, that the applicant’s counsel had failed to communicat e to the applicant the outcome of the writ petition. Be that as it may, the applicant claims to have come to know about the judicial order, dated 31.10.2009, only on 18.03.2010, when the Director of Secondary Educ ation, Assam, issued an order declaring the opposite party No. 4 herein as senio r to the applicant. The applicant, however, did not, even after 18.03.2010, tak e any step for filing the appeal. The explanation offered, in this regard, is that here mother-in-law was sick, as indicated above. In this regard, it needs to be noted that the opposite No. 4 has brought on record, by way of his objecti on to this application, that, throughout the period, in question, after 18.03.20 10, the applicant, who is a school teacher, had been attending to her duties. T herefore, there is no reason as to why the applicant could not come to Guwahati and file appeal, when she had been attending to her duties in her school. There is, thus, no convincing reasons assigned for not filing the appeal during the p eriod between 18.03.2010 and 07.05.2010, when the applicant claims to have sent her brother to Mr. Medhi, a practicing lawyer, to obtain a certified copy of the order. At any rate, a certified copy of the judgment and order, dated 31.10.20 09, was obtained on 29.05.2010; but, even after obtaining the certified copy of the said order, the appeal was not filed; and the only explanation offered by th e applicant, in this regard, is that her mother-in-law expired on 04.07.2010. W hile the applicant had been able to attend her duties in the school, there is no reason as to why she could not come to Guwahati and file appeal during the peri od between 29.05.2010 and 04.07.2010. Situated thus, we are of the view that the applicant has not been able to assign any cogent and convincing reason for not filing the appeal within the period, a s indicated above, and the reasons, which the applicant has subsequently assigne d, do not adequately justify the applicant’s negligence and laches in not filing the appeal within time. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not find that t he applicant has been able to make out any case warranting condonation of the de lay in preferring the appeal. The prayer for condonation of delay is, therefore , rejected. This Misc. case shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to cost.