Absence of formal delay condonation application does not vitiate proceedings absent proof of substantial prejudice.

The appellant was appointed as an Aanganbadi Karyakarta on December 29, 2016, following an advertisement for village Bhawanipur

Respondent No. 3 challenged this appointment.

After withdrawing an initial writ petition with liberty to approach the competent authority, Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Collector on April 25, 2017

Although the appeal was filed beyond the 30-day limitation prescribed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, and without a formal application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority condoned the delay and quashed the appellant's appointment

The authority held that, following her marriage, the appellant was a resident of village Katkaliya rather than Bhawanipur

The revisional authority (Commissioner) affirmed this decision on January 17, 2025

A Single Judge of the High Court subsequently dismissed the appellant’s writ petition (WPS No. 1038 of 2025) on January 2, 2026

The appellant now challenges that dismissal in the present writ appeal.

Whether the appellate authority’s condonation of delay in the absence of a formal application for condonation was legally sustainable

Whether the concurrent findings regarding the appellant’s residential status and subsequent ineligibility for the post were perverse or required interference

The court applied the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, regarding the 30-day limitation period for appeals

Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, governing revisional jurisdiction

The principle that technical objections regarding the non-filing of a formal condonation application do not vitiate proceedings if the authority exercises discretion based on a grant of liberty by a higher court and no substantial prejudice is shown

The established principle that in appellate jurisdiction, concurrent findings of fact based on evidence should not be disturbed unless they are manifestly arbitrary, illegal, or perverse

The Court observed that while Respondent No. 3 did not file a formal application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority correctly exercised its discretion given that the High Court had previously granted Respondent No. 3 liberty to pursue statutory remedies

The Court found that this procedural technicality did not cause substantial prejudice to the appellant

Regarding the merits, the Court noted that both the appellate and revisional authorities recorded concurrent findings of fact that the appellant resided in village Katkaliya after her marriage, not Bhawanipur

Since local residency was a prerequisite for the appointment, the appellant was rendered ineligible.

The Court held that these findings were based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and did not suffer from jurisdictional errors or perversity; therefore, it declined to re-appreciate the facts in a writ appeal

The Court affirmed that the appellate authority was justified in condoning the delay to adjudicate the matter on merits and that the appellant’s change of residence post-marriage disqualified her from the appointment

No relief was granted to the appellant.