Judgment:
CWP No.12917 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12917 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:01.07.2013 Gurdeep Singh & another .....Petitioners versus Secretary Education Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr.J.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners...Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
(Oral) The present writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent-authorities to consider their claim for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor.
Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioners had applied for the post of Physical Training Instructors in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the respondent-authorities in the year 2001.
It is further contended that inspite of possessing higher qualifications than the prescribed essential minimum qualifications, still their candidature was not accepted in the year 2001 itself.
Counsel further submits that certain other candidates had also approached this Court in terms of filing a civil writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.04.2012.
Some of the petitioners therein preferred LPA No.1214 of 2012, which came to be decided by an order dated 12.03.2013, wherein directions had been issued to consider the candidature of the appellants to the post of Physical Training InstructORS.The precise argument raised by the learned counsel is that the present petitioners are identically situated to the appellants in LPA No.1214 of 2012 and accordingly, they are vested with a right of parity in treatment.
CWP No.12917 of 2013 (O&M) -2- Having heard counsel for the petitioners at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed merely on the ground of delay and laches.
Even though, there would be no dispute as regards the proposition that a candidate possessing higher qualification than the prescribed essential qualifications has to be considered for appointment to a particular post, yet there is no justification coming forth either in the pleadings or at the stage of arguments as regards the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in having approached this Court by filing the present writ petition after a period of almost 12 yeaRs.It is undisputed that the petitioners had applied for the post of Physical Training Instructors in response to an advertisement issued in the year 2001 and their candidature had been rejected in the year 2001 itself.
The reliance placed by the learned counsel upon the judgment dated 12.03.2013 in LPA No.1214 of 2012 (Annexure P-1) is wholly mis-placed.
The appellants therein had fiRs.in point of time filed the writ petition in this Court in the year 2001 itself i.e.immediately upon their candidature having been rejected.
The present petitioners even though similarly situated cannot claim any impetus from the directions issued by the Division Bench in LPA No.1214 of 2012.
The issue as regards delay and laches, having been sitting on the fence and waiting for the outcome of the proceedings, initiated by other litigants, identically situated came up for consideration before the Division Bench in M/S Rup Diamonds & others versus Union of India, 1989 (2) SCC 35.and it was observed in the following terMs." Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several yeaRs.Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided.
Their case cannot be considered on the analogy of one where a law had been declared unconstitutional and void by a court, so as to enable persons to recover monies paid under the compulsion of a law later so declared void.
There is also CWP No.12917 of 2013 (O&M) -3- an unexplained, inordinate delay in preferring the present writ petition which is brought after a year after the fiRs.rejection.
As observed by the Court in Durga Prashad case, the exchange position of this country and the policy of the government regarding international trade varies from year to year.
In these matters it is essential that persons who are aggrieved by orders of the government should approach the High Court after exhausting the remedies provided by law, rule or order with utmost expedition.
Therefore, these delays are sufficient to persuade the Court to decline to interfere.
If a right of appeal is available, this order rejecting the writ petition shall not prejudice petitioneRs.case in any such appeal.
" Likewise, in the case of State of Karnataka & others versus S.M.Kotrayya & otheRs.1996 (6) SCC 267.the respondents therein had woken up to claim the relief which had been granted to their colleagues by the Tribunal with an application to condone the delay.
The delay was condoned by the Tribunal.
Thereafter, the State approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after considering the issue, it was held in the following terMs." Although it is not necessary to give an explanation for the delay which occurred within the period mentioned in sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 21, explanation should be given for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the aforesaid respective period applicable to the appropriate case and the Tribunal should satisfy itself whether the explanation offered was proper.
In the instant case, the explanation offered was that they came to knot of the relief granted by the Tribunal in August 1989 and that they filed the petition immediately thereafter.
That is not a proper explanation at all.
What was required of them to explain under sub-sections (1) and (2) was as to why they could not avail of the remedy of redressal of their grievances before the expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2).That was not the explanation given.
Therefore, the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in condoning the delay."
Accordingly, it is well settled that a litigant, who is guilty of long delay and laches would not be entitled to the relief and such delay would not be CWP No.12917 of 2013 (O&M) -4- ignored merely on account of the fact that some other identically situated employees have got the requisite relief.
Reference in this regard can also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, UP Jal Nigam & another versus Jaswant Singh & another 2007 (1) SCT 224.
For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches.
July 01, 2013 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE