Allahabad High Court
Sangam Prasad Mishra And Another vs State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Karmik ... on 12 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2584
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 568 of 2019 Appellant :- Sangam Prasad Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Karmik Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Purnendu Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Shukla,Om Prakash Mishra Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Sri A. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4/State and Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
The appeal is filed beyond 117 days.
As sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants, the application [C.M. Application No. 147155 of 2019] is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
This intra-Court Appeal has been filed by the appellants-writ petitioners against the judgment and order dated 16.7.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.36266 (SS) of 2018 by which the learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants are not vigilant of their rights and acquiesce with the situation claiming relief for an inordinate delay of 15 years to challenge the action.
Brief facts of the case are that 49 vacancies were requisitioned to the Commission for initiation of selection proceeding on the post of Sub-Registrar and Auditor Panchayat. An advertisement was issued inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates in the year 2001. Appellants applied for both the posts of Sub-Registrar and Auditor Panchayat. After conclusion of selection proceedings, result of the Sub-Registrar was declared by reducing the vacancies from 49 to 10. In the said selection, the appellants-writ petitioners were selected on the post of Auditor Panchayat and joined on the aforesaid post in 2003. It is also not disputed by the appellants that they knew about the order by which the vacancies have been reduced from 49 to 10, but the reasons were not known to them and therefore, they could not file the writ petition challenging the aforesaid action in 2002-03.
One Anoop Kumar Singh filed in 2004, wherein the learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition on 29.11.2017. After the judgment and order passed on 29.11.2017, reasons for reducing the vacancies from 49 to 10 came to the knowledge of the appellants and thereafter, they filed a writ petition in December, 2018, i.e., after an inordinate delay of more than 15 years and prayed for quashing the decision taken by the respondents in reducing the number of vacancies of Sub-Registrar post from 49 to 10 in 2002-03 and further, they pray for issuance of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint on the post of Sub-Registrar on the ground considered by the learned Writ Court in the judgment of Anoop Kumar Singh (supra).
The State has raised an objection of inordinate delay and laches by stating that the appellants have approached the learned Writ Court after a long delay of almost 15 years and therefore, they are not entitled to get any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Learned Writ Court, after considering the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and the decisions cited by both the parties, which have been reproduced in the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the appellants-writ petitioners do not approach the Competent Court of Law for redressal of their grievance within a reasonable time as the selection process was initiated in the year 2001 and the same was concluded in the year 2003. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment passed in Anoop Kumar Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The writ petitioners-appellants were selected on the post of Auditor Panchayat in the year 2002 and they were well aware of their non-selection on the post of Sub-Registrar in 2002-03 itself but they joined on the said post on their own free will without raising any objection or protest before the Competent Authority or Competent Court of Law and gave following findings while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches:-
"31. The question of delay and latches has been examined by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the series of decisions referred herein above and relied upon by learned Additional Advocate General, wherein latches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
32. When a person is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, whether his writ petition can be heard after a long lapse of time on the ground that the relief granted in the similar petition to a petitioner, who was vigilant about his rights and challenged the denial of appointment on the post of Sub Registrar, should be granted to him?
33. In the present case, the petitioners woke up to claim the relief after a long spell of time only on the ground that they came to know the reasons of curtailment of vacancies from 49 to 10 after the judgment was rendered in the case of Anoop Kumar Singh (Supra) on 29.11.2017. The reason that 39 vacancies advertised were backlog vacancies, therefore, the selection could not be made, first time came into knowledge of the petitioners on the finding returned in the case of Anoop Kumar Singh (Supra) and immediately thereafter, the writ petition in hand was filed claiming rights on the post of Sub Registrar.
34. This Court considered the submissions advanced and law reports relied upon by learned counsel for the parties and came to the conclusion that the delay and latches are relevant factor for a Court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration or not. Delay and / or latches on the part of petitioners may deprive them of the benefit, which has been provided to others.
35. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. The relief of equality should be made within a reasonable time.
36. In the opinion of this Court, there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the present case, the selection proceeding was initiated in pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 2001 and completed in the year 2004. The petitioners did not raise their grievances before appropriate forum at any level in regard to curtailment of vacancies from 49 to 10 and this writ petition has been filed after a long delay of almost 15 years.
37. This Court takes into account that there is inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching to this Court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the ground for refusing the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the petitioners are guilty of delay and latches. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction, as the object of this Court is not to encourage agitation of stale claims, which have already been settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime.
38. This Court while considering the issue of parity and discrimination has considered the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners and has recorded that discrimination would not in a situation of the present nature be attracted, as it is well known that law leans in favour of those, who are alert and vigilant. The relief of equality should be made within reasonable time. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
39. This Court, on perusal of the material on record, is satisfied that the petitioners are not vigilant of their rights and acquiesce with the situation claiming relief, as prayed for in the present writ petition and waited for 15 years, thus, this Court refuses to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
40. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed."
From the aforesaid, it is not in dispute that the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay of almost 15 years. From the day one, the appellants were well of the fact that the vacancies have been reduced from 49 to 10 and therefore, they joined on the post of Auditor Panchayat without any protest. The delay and laches are relevant factors to determine the question as to whether the claim made by the appellants deserves consideration or not. They did not raise their grievance before appropriate forum at any level in record to curtailment of vacancies from 49 to 10 and after a long delay of 15 years, when the matter of Anoop Kumar Singh (supra) was decided, the appellants took a chance by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the benefit of the aforesaid order. The appellants are guilty of delay and laches. The law on the subject is well settled.
On due consideration of the aforesaid and the reasons assigned by the learned Writ Court, we are of the view that the learned Writ Court has rightly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. No case is made out to take a different view in the matter.
The Special Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
.
[Alok Mathur, J.] [Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.] Order Date :- 12.12.2019 lakshman