IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 516 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12216/2005 Dated 03/03/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): 4TH RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CHALDEAN SYRIAN CHURCH SCHOOLS, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------------- 1. PINCY PAUL, MOOKEN HOUSE, MULANKUNNATHKAVU P.O., THRISSUR FORMERLY WORKING AS HSA (MATHS) IN LEAVE VACANCY, CHALDEAN SYRIAN CHURCH SCHOOL, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL & SRI.N.M.MADHU FOR R1 GP SMT.R.BINDU FO R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO.2964 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- C.M.APPLN.NO.244 OF 2008 in W.A.NO.516 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008. O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner prays for condonation of delay of 598 days in filing the appeal. It is pointed out that, against the judgment under appeal, a review application was attempted. The review application was dismissed and thereafter, this appeal was filed. In the meantime, there was a change in the management also and, therefore, the appeal cannot be filed in time. The 1st respondent vehemently opposes the application. According to him, there is no justification for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The delay has not been properly explained also. There was delay in filing the R.P and even after the judgment in the R.P was rendered, there is further delay in filing the appeal also. So, the delay petition may be dismissed. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC C.M.APPL.NO244/08 . 2 1353) concerning condonation of delay, we feel that the petitioner should be allowed to contest his case on merit. Accordingly, the delay is condoned on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.1,500/= to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent within two weeks from today. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl