MC 461/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. B . Ramchiary, learned Counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner. The instant application is one for condonation of delay of 418 d ays in preferring the accompanying appeal against the judgment and order dated 7 /4/2008 passed in WP(C) 2575/2007. The grievance of the opposite party/writ peti tioner while seeking to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court rel ates to the refusal on the part of the applicant authority to appoint him to the post of Head Constable (Ministrial) in C.R.P.F. though he had participated in t he connected selection process. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgmen t and order adjudged the action assailed to be unsustainable in law and on facts and directed the concerned authority to act in accordance with law accepting th e opposite party/writ petitioner to be qualified both in the typing test as well as the medical examination for appointment to the aforementioned post. On bein g queried by this Court, the learned Counsel for the opposite party/writ petitio ner, informed that meanwhile the opposite party/writ petitioner has been appoint ed as Head Constable (Ministerial) with the C.R.P.F. subject to the final orders that may be passed in the accompanying appeal. Mr. Ramchiary submits on instruc tions that as on date the opposite party/writ petitioner has no grievance. The applicants pleaded case for condonation of delay is that after the impugned judgment and order dated 7/4/2008, they opted to file a review petition before t he learned Single Judge which was eventually dismissed on 11/5/2009 and subseque nt thereto on receipt of the certified copy of the order dated 15/5/2009 on 26/5 /2009 the legal opinion of the concerned learned Central Government Standing Cou nsel was sought for which furnished on 26/5/2009 and on completion of other offi cial formalities the appeal was eventually filed on 30/6/2009. In the process a delay of 418 days counting from the date of the impugned judgment and order had occurred. Whereas Mr. Baruah has pleaded that in the facts and circumstanc es of the case, sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay, Mr. Ramchi ary by referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Gopal Krishan Das versus S ailendra Nath Biswas and another, AIR 1975 SC 1290, has urged that as the inacti on and negligence on the part of the applicants are writ large, the instant appl ication ought to be rejected in limine. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a totali ty of the consideration borne out by the records, we are inclined to sustain the objection raised on behalf of the opposite party/writ petitioner. The selection in question relates to a process initiated in the year 2004. As noticed hereina bove, the opposite party/writ petitioner has already been appointed in the post for which he had participated. The applicants though fully aware that the judgme nt and order was appealable under the Rules of this Court had chosen to seek a r eview thereof. The application therefor was rejected on 11/5/2009. The instant a ppeal was filed after almost six weeks therefrom. The cause shown, in our estima te, is not convincing and persuasive to condone the delay of 418 days in the att endant facts and circumstances of the case. This application, therefore, is reje cted.