Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Shyam Sunder Sharma vs Pt. Bhagwat Dyal Sharma And Ors on 8 August, 2012

Author: Hemant Gupta

Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                       Date of decision: 8.8.2012
                                           LPA No. 2110 of 2011

Shyam Sunder Sharma                                      ......Appellant

                               vs.

Pt. Bhagwat Dyal Sharma and ors                                 ....
Respondents

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: - Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the appellant HEMANT GUPTA, J Appellant is challenging the selection of respondents No. 2 to 4 who were appointed to the post of Assistant Supervisor (CSSD) in the University in the year 2004.

Learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches on 24.8.2011.

The only argument raised by the appellant is that earlier the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9138 of 2011, wherein, liberty was granted to the appellant to approach this Court again after the legal notice is decided. Therefore the writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Such petition was dismissed on 23.5.2011 and following orders were passed: -

"The legal notice served by the petitioner is still pending. Counsel seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition at this stage to approach this Court again once the legal notice is decided.
LPA No. 2110 of 2011
-2-
Dismissed as withdrawn at this stage with liberty as prayed for."

We do not find any merit in the argument raised by the appellant. Even the said writ petition filed in the year 2011, suffers from delay and laches. The appellant is sought to challenge the appointment of respondents No. 2 to 4 who were appointed in the year 2004. The invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court after seven years clearly suffers from delay and laches and has been rightly dismissed.

In view of the said fact, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 24.8.2011 which may warrant interference in appeal.

Dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 8.8.2012 preeti