THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY vs ZEBA PRAVEEN W/O S M INAMDAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT APPEAL NO. 200038 OF 2023 (S-RES)


BETWEEN:

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU- 01.

2. THE COMMISSIONER
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001.

3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KALABURAGI- 585101.

4. THE PRINCIPAL BI BI RAZA DEGREE COLLEGE
FOR WOMEN,
KALABURAGI- 585101.


…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA)












Digitally signed
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023


AND:

1. SMT. ZEBA PRAVEEN W/O S M INAMDAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN ZOOLOGY
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

2. SMT. KANEEZ FATIMA W/O SHAFEEQ ALI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN ZOOLOGY
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN,
KALABURAGI.

3. SMT. SHABANA BEGUM W/O SHAMSHUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN PHYSICS
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

4. SMT. S M SHAHJAHAN W/O HOMD RIYAZ,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN MATHEMATICS
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

5. SMT. JYOTHI W/O RAJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN ELECTRONICS
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

6. SMT. KOUSER JAHA W/O MOHD IQBAL,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN MATHEMATICS,
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

7. SMT. WAHAJA MUNEERA
W/O MOHAMMED KHADER KHAN,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023


AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN CHEMISTRY
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

8. SRI SYED ASHFAQ HUSSAIN
S/O LATE SHYED MAHMOOD HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: ATTENDER
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

9. SRI SHAIK KHASIM ALI S/O SHAIK DAWOOD,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: LAB ATTENDER
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

10. SRI AKRAM S/O KHAJA SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: LAB ATTENDER
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

11. SMT. FAREDA BI W/O AKBAR PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: LAB ATTENDER
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

12. SMT. BISMILLAH BI W/O RAHMAT KHAN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCC: LAB ATTENDER,
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

13. SRI ABDUL HAMEED W/O ABDUL RAHMAN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: GARDENER
BI BI RAAZ DEGREE COLLEGE, FOR WOMEN
KALABURAGI.

…RESPONDENTS

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023


THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, A) ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 16.02.2026 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NOS.201312- 21324/2015 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY,
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION. C) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S
AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.


THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

ORAL ORDER ON IA No.2/2023
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
Learned AGA for the appellant filed this application
for condonation of delay of 1,789 days in filing the appeal.

2. In support of the application, one Sanjay Kumar
Pattankar, Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Regional
Office, Kalaburagi, stating that, he has been appointed as
Litigation Conducting Officer in pursuance of the
Government order dated 31.10.2022 and it is stated that,
the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal may be

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023


considered as part and parcel of the affidavit for avoiding
the repetition. It is contended that, the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated
05.11.2015 in terms of the order dated 10.07.2015
rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP
No.21216/2014. After the receipt of the certified copy,
papers were submitted to the Legal Department for
submitting the opinion. Accordingly, the Legal Department
submitted the opinion for filing the writ appeal against the
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter,
some of the writ appeals were preferred, but insofar as the
present appeal is concerned, the Government has passed
the order dated 31.10.2022 for preferring the writ appeal
against the order of the learned Single Judge. It is
contended that, after obtaining all the papers along with
Government order, submitted the same to the Office of the
Advocate General. Accordingly, the Government Advocate
prepared the appeal and filed the same without making
further delay. Delay has been caused in filing the appeal

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023


and the said delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, but
for bona fide reasons. Hence, prays to allow the
application.

3. Heard the learned Additional Government
Advocate on the application.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that, the impugned order was passed by the
learned Single Judge on 16.02.2016 passed in WP
No.201312-201324/2015 and the writ papers were sent to
the Legal Department for seeking the opinion. The Legal
Department, after scrutinizing the documents, has opined
to prefer a writ appeal. Thus, there is a delay caused in
filing the writ appeal. The appellants have shown a
sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal well within
time. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the
application.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023


5. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned Additional Government
Advocate.

6. The respondents had filed a writ petition
challenging the re-fixation of the pay-scale of the
respondents vide order dated 05.12.2014 issued by
appellant No.3 vide Annexure-J. Learned Single, referring
to the order passed in WP No.21216/2014 and connected
matters, allowed the writ petitions. The order passed in
WP No.21216/2014 and connected matters was challenged
by preferring a writ appeal in WA No.2476/2015 and
connected matters. Learned Additional Government
Advocate submits that, the said writ appeal and the
connected matters came to dismissed vide order dated
24.07.2026. The order passed in WP No.21216/2014 and
connected matters has attained finality and the learned
Single Judge has referred to the order passed in the said
petition.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023



7. The appellants have filed this appeal after a
lapse of more than 4.5 years. In the affidavit, except
stating that the writ papers were referred to the Legal
Department for seeking an opinion, the appellant has not
shown any sufficient cause for condoning the delay of
1,789 days in filing the writ appeal.

8. We would like to place reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and
1
Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu , wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held in paragraph Nos.16 and 17, which read as
follows:
“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should
not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to
weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the
same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of
the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to

1
(2014) 4 SCC 108

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023


the primary principle that when an aggrieved person,
without adequate reason, approaches the court at his
own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal
obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage
should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in
the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and
laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances
inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant
who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects
inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant
who has forgotten the basic norms, namely,
“procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second,
law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.
Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.

17. In the case at hand, though there has been four
years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court
chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court
to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be
ignored without any justification. That apart, in the
present case, such belated approach gains more
significance as the respondent employee being absolutely
careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude
to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent
on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the
cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to
such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023


contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect
others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened
rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation
which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been
treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected
to give indulgence to such indolent persons — who
compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van
Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such delay does not
deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the
writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at
the very threshold.”

9. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing
2
Board and Others , has held in paragraph Nos.261 and
262 as follows:
“261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the
impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set
aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we
deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that
administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a
sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want
to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts
that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and

2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023


superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause
is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to
establish that it acted with bona fides and remained
vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to
justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more
particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate
the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also
equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing
litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.

262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing
effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its
instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the
party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority.
They should not become surrogates for State laxity and
lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant
of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants
cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations,
wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders
are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate
this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to
notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until
sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add
insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under
Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already
limited to questions of law.”

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9686-DB
WA No. 200038 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030008812023


10. Considering the propositions of law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases referred supra, we
do not find any grounds to condone the inordinate delay of
1,789 days in filing the appeal.

11. Accordingly, the application is dismissed ;
consequently, the writ appeal is also dismissed .

12. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending
IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE


PA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
CT:PK