Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 7th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 1663 of 2016
Between:-
1. GOPAL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI NARAYAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUB
DIVISIONAL OFFICER FOREST POSTED AT
PRESENT SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PRODUCTION DHUMA FOREST DIVISION SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHANDRA BHUSAN PANDIYA S/O LATE RAJ
NARAYAN PANDIYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
FLAT NO. 1 NEELAGIRI APARTMENT J-BLOCK,
VIKAS NAGAR BUS STAND, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D.K. TRIPATHI, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
FOREST DEPARTMENT SATPURA BHAWAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEVDATT BHAVE, PANEL LAWYER )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
ORDER
SAN The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2022.07.12 11:00:36 IST of India praying for following reliefs:-
2"I. To call for entire relevant record.
II. To issue the appropriate writs orders, directions in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding thereby the respondents authorities to send the petitioners for training on post of A.C.F. by treating him deemed to had been appointed on the said post w.e.f. 17.01.1990, in terms of Rule 15 of amended M.P. STATE FOREST SERVICE (RECRUITMENT) RULES, 1977.
III. Any other relief together cost of the petition which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
IV. To give appointment to the petitioners as A.C.F. w.e.f. 17.01.1990 without sending them in A.C.F. training and also give all consequential benefits like seniority, promotion, arrears of salary etc. to the petitioners."
The facts as elaborated in the petition reveal that the petitioner appeared in State Forest Service Examination 1986 conducted by the Public Service Commission, Indore. The examination was for 20 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest (A.C.F.) and 30 posts of Forest Ranger. After written examination and interview, the result was declared on 24.03.1987 and a list of 20 candidates of Assistant Conservator of Forest (A.C.F.) was prepared as main list and a supplementary list of 10 candidates was prepared in which the name of the petitioner No.1 was mentioned at serial no.4 and the name of petitioner No.2 was mentioned at serial no.2.
It is further submitted in the petition that in the supplementary list, there were two candidates over in above the petitioners and out of these two candidates, one Dinesh Katariya did not appear for joining and the other Premchandra Lal was declared unfit in the medical examination. Therefore, the petitioners' candidature ought to have been considered for their selection against the post of A.C.F. It is further contended that petitioners were not aware about the fact that out of 20 candidates only 12 were sent for training and the Signature Not Verified SAN petitioners being oblivious of the aforesaid fact accepted their selection against Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2022.07.12 11:00:36 IST the post of Forest Range Officer and started performing their duties. It is 3 contended in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that in the month of May -June 2015, the petitioners visited Tihri Ghadwal and met one Bhupendra Pratap Singh who was at serial no.9 in the merit list of A.C.F., who informed the petitioner that he and one Sameer Shukla did not join the training of A.C.F., therefore, the petitioners made application under Right to Information Act for obtaining the relevant documents and thereafter sent representations and filed the present petition. Therefore, the petitioners while praying for a direction that the respondents authority be directed to give appointment to the petitioners as A.C.F. w.e.f. 17.01.1990 without compelling them to undergo A.C.F. training with all consequential benefits has filed this petition. The petitioners have relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Rakesh Beniwal and Ors in W.P.No. (C) 7423/2013 passed on 04.08.2014 and other order in S.P.A. No.141/2011.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a preliminary objection has been taken by the State as regards the filing of petition after lapse of more than 25 years without explaining the delay satisfactorily. He further submits that there is no explanation in paragraph 4 of the petition that as to why there was complete inaction on the part of the petitioners for a long period of 25 years. It is further contended by the respondent that the explanation as set forth in paragraph 4 of the petition does not appear to be plausible and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself.
Having heard the rival submission of both the parties.
Signature Not VerifiedThis Court is of the considered view that the present petition instead of SAN Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL merit is required to be dealt with on the question of delay. The petitioners' Date: 2022.07.12 11:00:36 IST explanation as put forth in paragraph 4 of the writ petition in the considered 4 view of this Court is not at all sufficient. It is the explanation which was incorporated by way of an amendment in the petition is apparently an after thought. The petitioners have failed to explain the inordinate delay of more than 25 years in approaching the Court. The submission of the petitioner that one of the candidate Bhupandera Pratap Singh disclosed the fact that he and some other candidate had not joined the post of A.C.F. in 2015 then only the petitioners made effort to obtain the information under Right to Information Act is also beyond comprehension. The petitioners were sitting tite over the matter for more than 25 years and therefore, at this stage, no interference is warranted at instance of the petitioners.
In the case of Bholeram Lodhi vs. Union of India and Ors. (W.P.No.10293/2019) a Division Bench of this Court ruled thus:-
"9. The maxim “Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit†(Equity assists the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights), aims to discourage attempt to revive stale claims. By efflux of time reluctance weighs more than interference. More particularly, in the cases pertaining to employment where a litigant is out of job and his livelihood is at stake, still sits over his rights without justifiable reason, the Courts tend to get reluctant in entertaining stale claims of re-employment. Moreover, by encouraging such litigation the employer cannot be saddled with liability to accommodate employee particularly when employer having assured that the terminated employee has accepted his termination in absence of further challenge, grant employment to other suitable candidate. Therefore, during this long passage of time, the employer alters its position to his detriment and therefore, cannot be expected to confront litigation after prolong and inordinate delay of 4-5 years."
The Apex Court in para 21 to 22.4 in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 has held as under :-
Signature Not Verified"21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be SAN culled out are:Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2022.07.12 11:00:36 IST
21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, nonpedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation 5 of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.
21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
21.5. (v) Lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration.
It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a Signature Not Verified SAN collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.
Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:-
Date: 2022.07.12 11:00:36 IST 6 22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.
22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.
22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."
The apex Court in the case of Nagar Panchayat, Kymore vs. Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi in Civil Appeal Nos.289-290/2022 order dated 10.01.2022 and in the Case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors, vs. Jyotish Chandra Biswas reported in (2000) 6 SCC 562 has held that the stale claim cannot be revived after inordinate delay.
If case is examined on the anvil of aforesaid judgments it shows that in the case in hand, there is an attempt by the petitioners to revive a stale claim which is not permissible particularly at this stage inasmuch as, the same will adversely effect the rights of other candidates/other employees who are not even before this Court in the present petition. It is also to be taken note of that by efflux of this inordinate delay of more than 25 years, the other candidates in the list have already availed the benefit of inclusion of their name in the seniority lists/gradation lists as well as the benefit of promotions. Therefore, any interference at this stage will amount to disturbing the settled position of last Signature Not Verified SAN more than 25 years, more particularly, when none of those candidates are party Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2022.07.12 11:00:36 IST to the present litigation.
7Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, its a petition where a stale claim is being sought to be revived after inordinate delay of more than 26 years. Thus, apparently lis suffers from delay and laches.
The judgment of Delhi High Court in Rakesh Beniwal (Supra) relied by the petitioner, is distinguishable as in the said case, the employees were agitating the grievances however, the employer was found guilty of inaction and in paragraph 26 of the judgment, the Court held that in action was attributable to the employer.
Therefore, in the present case, the petitioners themselves remained silent as regards their alleged rights. It is beyond imagination that the petitioners were oblivious of fact as regards the non-filling of vacancy of A.C.F. in the year 1986-1987. It is also beyond comprehension that the petitioners made no effort to find the actual situation by examining the seniority/gradation list which is issued by the employer regularly. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that they came to know about the cause in 2015 only is untenable as well as ill founded.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches, resultantly, the same stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE sp Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2022.07.12 11:00:36 IST