C.B.S.E. vs B.R. Uppal And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 28 Del

JUDGMENT

Markandeya Katju, C.J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.3.2004. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since the facts of the case are stated in the impugned order, they are not repeated herein.

2. It appears that a provisional seniority list was published on 20.2.1982 inviting objections. Thereafter a final seniority list was published on 19.6.1982. A writ petition was filed in 1988 after a delay of six years. In our opinion, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and should not have been heard on merits at all.

3. It may be mentioned that when a final seniority list is published, then certain rights accrue to the persons whose names are contained in that seniority list. If anybody has any grievance against that seniority list, he should challenge it within a reasonable time. In the present case, the writ petition was filed after six years of the publication of the final seniority list. In our opinion, such a stale claim should not have been entertained by this court at all.

4. The principle of laches have been discussed in detail in a Division Bench decision in Sambolo International H.K. v. UOI and Ors. (WP(C) 8837/2005) decided on 08.11.2005. The relevant Supreme Court decisions have been referred to in the aforesaid decision. Hence, we are not repeating the same. Following the said decision, we set aside the impugned judgment, and dismiss the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was making representations which have been entertained against the final seniority list. In M/s Sambolo International H.K. (supra), we have observed in paragraph 27 as follows:-

We may also clarify that the pursuit of a departmental representation or correspondence is no ground for condoning the delay in approaching the High Court. (vide : Ramalakshmiah v. State of Mysore (supra) J.N.Maltiar v. State of Bihar (supra), Gian Singh Mann V.P. & H.High Court (supra) etc. It is only when the representation is a statutory representation that the time spent in pursuing it can be taken into consideration in deciding whether the petitioner has approached the High Court after undue delay.

6. Thus, merely making representations is not a good ground for condoning the delay unless it is a statutory representation.

7. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the plea of laches has been taken for the first time. Even assuming that is correct, it is a purely legal ground and can be taken up in the appeal as well, as an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings.

8. Appeal is allowed.