Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shyam Sunder Sharma vs Pt. Bhagwat Dyal Sharma University Of ... on 24 August, 2011
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 14455 of 2011 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 14455 of 2011
Date of Decision :24.08.2011
Shyam Sunder Sharma
.......... Petitioner
Versus
Pt. Bhagwat Dyal Sharma University of Medical Sciences, Rohtak
(Haryana) & others
...... Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. (ORAL)
Challenge in this writ petition is to the selection of respondents No. 2 to 4, who were appointed to the post of Assistant Supervisor (CSSD) in the respondent University in the year 2004.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he was a candidate for the said post. The selection has been made in total violation of the selection criteria, which had been laid down, according to which marks have been assigned for the written test and have been granted to the candidates, as a matter of fact no such test was held. His further contention is that the marks which have been assigned to the respondents have been given in an arbitrary manner and the petitioner has not been assigned even a single mark. In support of this contention he has CWP No. 14455 of 2011 -2- relied upon the information supplied to him under the Right to Information, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. His contention is that on a legal notice submitted by the petitioner, which has been decided by the respondents vide order dated 8.11.2010 (Annexure P-8). This fact has not been disputed with regard to the non- holding of the written test. He on this basis contends that the selection of respondents No. 2 to 4 being in violation of the selection criteria cannot be sustained.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case.
On a specific question put by the Court as to the explanation for the delay in approaching the Court after almost six years of the said selection and appointment, the only explanation which has been put forth by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had approached the respondents in the year 2007 to seek information under the Right to Information Act, which was made available only in the year 2009. On receipt of the said information the petitioner came to know about the illegality committed by respondent No.1 and, therefore, the petitioner has now approached this Court through this writ petition.
This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the Right to Information Act came into force in the year 2005. A per the admitted position and as stated by the counsel for the petitioner he sought the information only in the year 2007 which was supplied to him in the year 2009 but still the petitioner did not approach the Court instead preferred a legal notice dated 17.6.2010. The explanation which has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable as the petitioner was not vigilant enough to agitate his CWP No. 14455 of 2011 -3- claim within a reasonable time. Now after a delay of six years the petitioner has approached this Court which itself dis-entitles him of the claim which has been made by him in the present writ petition. Even the civil suit is barred at this stage and settled rights at this belated stage cannot be upsetted now merely because some illegality has come to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner step over his rights from 2004 onwards and made efforts to gather information which he could have earlier sought prior to the year 2009.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed.
24.08.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE