Manish Kumar Pandey v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1704 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3993 of 2016 ====================================================== Manish Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Radheshyam Panday Resident of villageAdfa, P.O.- Kanjharuan, P.S.- Koransaraya, District- Buxar ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India and Ors 2.

The Inspector General of C.R.P.F, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Deputy Inspector General Group Centre C.R.P.F. Jhapahan, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 4.

The Deputy Commandant Adm Group Centre, C.R.P.F. Muzaffarpur Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s :

M/s S.D Sanjay Addl. Soc. Gen.

R.K.Sharma, C.G.C.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) 06-01-2020 Heard the parties on I.A. No. 9091 of 2018, which has been filed by appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 271 days in filing this appeal. The impugned order goes to show that the petitioner raised grievance that he was an applicant in the examination for selection of constable in C.R.P.F. and the selection process of the aforesaid examination was held in the year 2011 but according to petitioner - appellant, he was called for medical examination and the date of medial examination was fixed on 11.1.2011 but the letter was served to the house of petitioner - appellant on

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1704 of 2018(3) dt.06-01-2020 2/2 15.1.2011 and thereafter he approached the concerned Medical Officer but his medical was not done. However, he received a letter on 3.11.2015 and came to know that he has been declared unfit by the concerned authority. However, petitioner-appellant challenged selection process in the year 2016 by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3993 of 2016. The learned Single Judge having considered the delay in challenging the selection process dismissed the writ petition on 6.2.2018. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated 6.2.2018 on 4.12.2018, i.e., after 271 days of the passing of the aforesaid order.

Although, appellant has filed a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 271 days in filing this appeal but no reason for the aforesaid delay has been given in the aforesaid petition, therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as taking note of the submission of the parties, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing this appeal and, accordingly, I.A. No. 9091/2018 stands rejected. As a result whereof, this appeal stands dismissed being time barred.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Spd/- ( Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) U