STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SARATSINGH R SISODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The present applicants - State of Gujarat and Inspector General of Police who are the Appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal have filed the aforesaid application on 19-7-1989 to condone the delay of 120 days caused in filing the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal. The facts are as under : The present opponents filed Special Civil Application No. 3502 of 1980 praying to declare that the Rule at Annexure 'C', the previous policy decisions, Circulars and Government Resolutions in respect of giving 33 1/3 % reservation to Matriculate/ S.S.C. passed Constables are not superseded and remain effective and that the Select List of S.S.C. Constables fit to be promoted as Head Constables, Grade II remains operative till the same is exhausted and the petitioners in the Writ Petition are entitled to be promoted in their turn if found fit and for other reliefs. There were other Special Civil Applications involving common question filed by different petitioners. All the petitions came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge who allowed all the Special Civil Applications by a common judgment dated 17-4-1985.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present petitioners filed a Letters Patent Appeal on 1 8/09/1986, being Letters Patent Appeal No. 187 of 1986. The present petitioners herein also filed a Civil Application in the Letters Patent Appeal being Civil Application No. 923 of 1986 praying, inter alia, to stay of the execution and implem Cation of the aforesaid judgement and order dated 17-4-1986. On 30-6-1986 a Division Bench of this Court admitted the Letters Patent Appeal and issued Rule on the said Civil Application and also granted ad interim relief as prayed for. The present opponents filed affidavit-in reply dated 2/09/1986 opposing the aforesaid Civil Application. Another Division Bench of this, Court after hearing both the sides' on Civil Application for interim relief made the Rule absolute by directing that the promotions granted will be subject to the decision of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal, and fixed the Letters Patent Appeal for peremptory final hearing.

(3.) At the time of final hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal, learned Advocate for respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Letters Patent Appeal is time-barred and cannot be heard on merits. It was found that the filing of the Letters Patent Appeal was delayed by 120 days and, therefore, this Civil Application is filed for condoning the delay.