Joginder Kumar vs Dsssb
2009 Latest Caselaw 2156 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                 LPA 238/2009 & CM No. 7281/2009



        JOGINDER KUMAR                                  ..... Appellant
                     Through:         Mr. Mahabir Singh, Senior
                                      Advocate with Mr. Rakesh
                                      Dahiya, Advocate.
                      versus

        DSSSB                                        ..... Respondent
                           Through:   Mr. Elgin Matt John for
                                      Ms. Anju Bhattacharya,
                                      Advocate.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                      ORDER

% 19.05.2009

1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned

single Judge dated 17th April, 2009. Briefly stated the facts of the

case are as follows:-

2. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) applied

for the post of TGT (Male) Sanskrit, pursuant to an advertisement

dated 4th October, 2003. The total posts to be filled by the

Department in the OBC category were twelve. As per the appellant,

when he applied for information under Right to Information Act, he

was informed by the respondent wide letter dated 24th March, 2009

that he had secured 56.75 marks while two other selected candidates

under the OBC Category secured 71 and 62.50 marks. As per the

appellant, the said letter also disclosed that there were still ten

vacancies which had remained unfilled as no suitable candidate had

been found. It is the case of the appellant that since no qualifying

marks were prescribed in the said advertisement and ten vacancies

still existed, the appellant should have been selected to the said

advertised post.

3. The learned single Judge took note of the fact that admittedly,

the post was advertised as long back as on 4th October, 2003 and the

appellant had come to know about the result of the same after he was

not selected. The appellant, for the first time asked for certain

information under Right to Information Act in 2006. Thereafter the

appellant again sought information in 2008. Since either the

appellant's letter had not been replied to or incomplete information

had been given, he again sought information which was replied to

vide letter dated 24th March, 2009. The learned single Judge has

correctly come to the conclusion that in the entire petition, there is

no explanation given by the appellant for approaching this Court so

belatedly after a lapse of about five years from the date of the

declaration of the results. The learned singled Judge has rightly held

that the appellant did not pursue his rights diligently and slept over

them for over four to five years. There is clearly inexplicable delay on

the part of the appellant to seek timely remedy. The learned single

Judge thus, in our view, correctly refused to entertain the writ

petition on account of delay and latches.

4. We see no infirmity in the said order. The appeal is accordingly

dismissed. The pending application stands disposed of as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 19, 2009 sb