Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 December, 2002
Nonetheless, this Court owes a duty to further declare that
the attempt of the petitioner, in the garb of the present writ
petition, to challenge the Notification of the year 1999, issued by
the University granting promotion to the respondent no. 4 to the
post of Reader, w.e.f. 22.12.1986 i.e. after a lapse of about 20
years as also seeking to challenge the Notification of the year
2011, granting promotion to the respondent no. 4 on the post of
Professor, i.e. after a lapse of about 8 years, is marred by the
principles of delay and laches and on this ground as well the writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.154 of 2019 dt.13-08-2020
31/34
petition is bound to fail and is accordingly dismissed. In this
connection, this Court would like to refer to a judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ex. Capt.
Harish Uppal vs. Union of India reported in 1994 SCC, Supl.
(2) 195, paragraph No. 8 whereof is reproduced herein below:-
Mithi Mukherjee vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 January, 2014
Similarly, the observations of the Single Bench of the
Calcutta High Court in the case of Mithi Mukherjee Vs. State of
West Bengal and ors. (W.P. No. 14028 of 2013) and other
connected petitions decided on 20.01.2014 are also relevant,
which are extracted herein below:-
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
1