Chandra Prakash Misra and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - delayed petition - petitioners not appointed despite candidates who stood below in selection list appointed - petitioners did not move court for two years until petition of three other candidates to get appointment was allowed - held, petitioners careless about their rights and interference at belated stage impossible under writ jurisdiction. - orderm. katju and onkareshwar bhatt, jj.1. heard counsel for the parties.2. the petitioners have alleged that they were higher in the select list of the p.c.s. examination of 1992 but they have not been given appointment, although, the persons who are below in merit in the select list have been given appointment. this fact has not been disputed by sri a. kumar, who has appeared on behalf of the three persons who are lower in merit and have been given appointment and are working.3. sri u. n. sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the petitioners in this writ petition did not file writ petition in the year 1996 when the result was declared, still they could not have been ignored. however, the supreme court in ashok alias somanna gowda and another v. state of karnataka and others. (1992) 1 scc 28, has observed 'learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state of karnataka pointed out that there are many other candidates who had secured much higher marks than the appellants in case the above criteria is applied for selection. in view of the fact that the appointments under the impugned rules were made as back as in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached the tribunal for relief, the case of the candidates cannot be considered as they never approached for redress within reasonable time.'4. however, sri u. n. sharma has. relied on another division bench decision of the supreme court in state of kerala v. kumari t. p. roshana and another. (1979) 1 scc 572, where it, was observed that the benefit of reliefs granted by the court may be extended to those affected persons who did not move the court. this decision relates to admission in medical colleges and not to service law. moreover, in the present case when the result had been declared in 1996 three persons who have been given appointment moved writ petition no. 28480 of 1996, vinay shankar pandey and others v. state of u. p.and another, which was allowed on 21.2.1998. vide annexure-4 to the writ petition. the present writ petitioners moved the present writ petition only after the above decision was delivered. thus, they slept over their rights and woke up after the above decision was given in vinay shanker pandey's case. it is settled law that writ is a discretionary remedy and hence we are not inclined to interfere at this belated stage. the persons who were appointed have not only been appointed but have been working for some time, and we are not inclined to cancel their appointments at this late stage.5. this petition is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

M. Katju and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have alleged that they were higher in the select list of the P.C.S. Examination of 1992 but they have not been given appointment, although, the persons who are below in merit in the select list have been given appointment. This fact has not been disputed by Sri A. Kumar, who has appeared on behalf of the three persons who are lower in merit and have been given appointment and are working.

3. Sri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the petitioners in this writ petition did not file writ petition in the year 1996 when the result was declared, still they could not have been ignored. However, the Supreme Court in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another v. State of Karnataka and others. (1992) 1 SCC 28, has observed 'learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka pointed out that there are many other candidates who had secured much higher marks than the appellants in case the above criteria is applied for selection. In view of the fact that the appointments under the impugned Rules were made as back as in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached the Tribunal for relief, the case of the candidates cannot be considered as they never approached for redress within reasonable time.'

4. However, Sri U. N. Sharma has. relied on another Division Bench decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Kumari T. P. Roshana and another. (1979) 1 SCC 572, where It, was observed that the benefit of reliefs granted by the Court may be extended to those affected persons who did not move the Court. This decision relates to admission in medical colleges and not to service law. Moreover, in the present case when the result had been declared in 1996 three persons who have been given appointment moved Writ Petition No. 28480 of 1996, Vinay Shankar Pandey and others v. State of U. P.and another, which was allowed on 21.2.1998. vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The present writ petitioners moved the present writ petition only after the above decision was delivered. Thus, they slept over their rights and woke up after the above decision was given in Vinay Shanker Pandey's case. It is settled law that writ is a discretionary remedy and hence we are not inclined to interfere at this belated stage. The persons who were appointed have not only been appointed but have been working for some time, and we are not inclined to cancel their appointments at this late stage.

5. This petition is dismissed.