Delhi High Court
Arvind Kumar vs High Court Of Delhi & Anr. on 21 May, 2010
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 12.05.2010
% Date of decision : 21.05.2010
+ WP (C) No.3249/2010
ARVIND KUMAR ...... ... ... ...PETITIONER
Through : Mr.V.Shekhar, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.S.Ganesh, Ms.D.Jain and
Mr.Jatin Rajput, Advocates
-VERSUS-
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. ... ... ... RESPONDENTS
Through : Mr.Viraj R.Datar, Adv. for R-1.
Ms.Zubeda Begum, Adv. for R-2
AND
+ WP (C) No.3250/2010
MOHIT SONDHI ...... ... ... ...PETITIONER
Through : Mr.V.Shekhar, Sr.Adv. with
Mr.S.Ganesh, Ms.D.Jain and
Mr.Jatin Rajput, Advocates
-VERSUS-
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. ... ... ... RESPONDENTS
Through : Mr.Viraj R.Datar, Adv. for R-1.
Ms.Zubeda Begum, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? NO
To be referred to Reporter or not? NO
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
WPC No.3249/2010 and WPC No.3250/2010 Page 1 of 3
Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. These two writ petitions were filed only on 10.05.2010 in
respect of the recruitment process started in 2008 which
was completed by declaration of results in May 2009, in
respect of Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2008. The
candidates already stand appointed in July and
September, 2009.
2. The case of the petitioners is predicated on the same
plea as raised in WP(C) No.10787/2009. These matters
were heard along with the said petition on the same
grounds subject to the plea raised by learned counsel for
the respondents of delay and laches in these two
petitions. The said writ petition being WP(C)
No.10787/2009 has been dismissed by a separate order
pronounced by us today and thus these two writ
petitions would also not survive on merits.
3. We would like to note that in these two cases, the
further impediment in the way of the petitioners is
inordinate delay and laches in approaching the court.
This aspect has been discussed in WP(C) No.10787/2009
and applies with much more force in the present cases
where the petitioners have further slept over the matters
from May, 2009 to May, 2010 for a period of one year
during which time the process of recruitment for Delhi
Judicial Service Examination, 2009 has already
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
commenced, substantially proceeded ahead, preliminary
examination held and results declared with the main
examination scheduled to be held in June, 2010. The
fact of the petitioners being wiser in view of the
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar
v.High Court of Delhi & Anr.; 2010 (2) SCALE 86 (=2010
3 SCC 104) would not come to the aid of the petitioners
since the petitioners cannot rest their fate or plead
inaction as no bar on the basis of a subsequent
judgment rendered in another case and even that
judgment was pronounced on 01.02.2010.
4. The writ petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 21, 2010 VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
dm
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
