IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4246 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.4.2011 __________________________________________________ Tara Devi …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ` ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Ms.Archana Dutt, Advocate For the respondents: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.AG for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.T.S.Chauhan, counsel for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner herein alongwith respondent No.4 applied for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Panjgain, District Bilaspur. The respondent No.4 was selected and the petitioner challenged her appointment by filing an Appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. Admittedly this appeal was 2 not filed within the prescribed period of 15 days. However, the learned Deputy Commissioner condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the appeal filed by the present petitioner. The respondent No.4 filed a second appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi who held that the learned Deputy Commissioner had wrongly entertained the appeal since the same was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation and furthermore, no application for condonation of delay was filed. He accordingly remanded the case back to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. Thereafter, the case was heard by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur. He rejected the appeal on the ground that since no application for condonation of delay had been filed he had no authority to condone the delay. This order is under challenge before this Court. Ms.Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a very good case on merits and she also prayed that at this stage, the petitioner may be allowed to file an 3 application for condonation of delay and the matter be remanded back to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. I am afraid that this cannot be permitted. A Division Bench of this Court in Sunita Kumari vs. State of H.P & ors. CWP No.1575 of 2008 and other connected matters relating to Anganwari Workers held as follows:- “Another legal contention is as to whether the Appellate Authority has power to condone delay in filing appeal. The Guidelines provide a period of 15 days for filing an appeal. Being a statutory authority, in terms of the Policy Guidelines, the Appellate Authority does not have the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. No power is conferred also in the guidelines for condonation of delay. Therefore, he cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, it has only to be dismissed, since the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.” A perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court clearly shows that the Appellate Authority does not have the power to 4 condone the delay in filing an appeal. Therefore, this prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. April 13, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge