' This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment passed by the Service Tribunal on 22-6-2002, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed for want of sufficient proof.
2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present petition for leave to appeal, are that the petitioner according to his own version was inducted in Forest Department as a Forester on the recommendations of the Selection Committee vide order Book No,87 for the year 1994-95 issued vide order of Conservator of Forests (respondent No,3) under No,3887-90 dated 30-6-1995. The appointment of the petitioner was made against the permanent post of normal budget where against he joined his duties and completed the probationary period successfully. Consequently the petitioner remained serving as a permanent employee of the department to the full satisfaction of his superiors. On the other hand, certain people were inducted as Foresters purely on temporary and contract basis against the scheme known as NRMP' which scheme was for a limited period.
Consequently the inductees were supposed to be removed from the service after the completion of the project but on account of pick and choose policy certain Foresters were unduly favored by the respondents and were absorbed in the department against the permanent posts, while the permanent inductees were transferred against the vacancies in 'NRMP' and other World Bank sponsored schemes. With mala fide intentions of respondents and favoritism, a common seniority list was prepared whereas the Foresters employed on temporary basis never qualified to be civil servants by any stretch of imagination or law. The induction of the petitioner was never challenged by any aggrieved person. However at a very late stage the respondents vide the order of respondent No,1 under No,SF/4471-74 dated 25-9-2000 removed the petitioner from service alongwith so many others on the pretext of the representation allegedly filed by on Muhammad Razzaque and other Forest Guards who allegedly claimed the violation of quota reserved for departmental promotion. The petitioner and others filed a regular appeal before the Service Tribunal in due course of time which was dismissed by the Service Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 22-6-2002.
3. Without entering into the merits of the case of the parties, the office has pointed out that the petition for leave to appeal is barred by limitation of two days and no application for condonation of delay has been moved by the petitioner nor any request has been made for condoning the delay and explaining the same. It may be pointed out that the judgment of the Service Tribunal was pronounced on 22-6-2002, whereas the petition for leave to appeal was filed on 28-8-2002.
Thus, the petition was lodged after 67 days, whereas the period of limitation for lodging the petitioner for leave to appeal is fixed as 60 days. The petitioner applied for obtaining the relevant copies of the impugned judgment and memo of appeal before the Service Tribunal on 16-8-2002 and the same were furnished to him on 20-8-2002; however the appeal was lodged on 28-8-2002.
This shows that even after excluding the period spent in obtaining the relevant copies, the petition is barred by limitation of two days for which no explanation whatsoever has been furnished in the memo of appeal before this neither Court nor an application has been moved for condonation of delay nor any affidavit has been filed by the petitioner furnishing any explanation for the delay.
4. This Court in numerous cases had held that the delay of even one day is to be explained satisfactorily and if the same is not explained, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In a case reported as Mehboob and another v. Muzaffar Din (1992 SCR 338) the petition for leave to appeal was time-barred by one day and the same was dismissed on this sole ground.
' In another case reported as Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary v. Ch. Muhammad Latif (PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 70, it was observed that delay of each day should be satisfactorily explained otherwise the same cannot be condoned.
' In an unreported case of this Court titled Havaldar Rtd. Ali Hussain Khan and others v. Muhammad Suleman Khan and others Civil P.L.A. No, 215 of 2002 decided on 14-11-2002 it was observed that after deducting four days for obtaining the copies of judgment, still the petition is barred by three days for which no reasonable explanation has been furnished by the petitioners. The petitioners have not moved any application for condonation of delay in lodging the petition for leave to appeal. The petition being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed.
' In another case reported as Vice Chancellor and others v. Raja Fazal Hussain Rabbani (2002 M LD 1209) it was observed that delay of each and every day has to be explained by the party who filed the petition for leave to appeal beyond the period of limitation.
5. It is abundantly clear that the petition in the present case has been lodged after being barred by limitation and no application whatsoever for condonation of delay has been moved by neither the petitioner nor any verbal request has been made. Even no prayer in the memo of appeal has been made for condonation of delay nor supported by any affidavit of the petitioner. The law on this point stands settled that delay A of each and every day is to be explained by the party whose petition/appeal is barred by limitation as the delay of each and every day has to be explained by the party who has been negligent enough to file its petition/appeal beyond the period of limitation.
' In the light of what has been stated above, the petition being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.