Ls Mishra vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 2794 Del

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 2625/2010
%                                                            5th July, 2013

      LS MISHRA                                ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Subrata Dass,
                          Advocates

                          versus

      GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS         ..... Respondents

Through Mr. S.Q. Kazim,Mr. M.H. Usmani, Advocates for respondent No. 1 with Mr. S.K.

Nimmi, Dy. Education Officer.

Ms. Nandini Sen, Advocate for R-2.

Mr. Virender Goswami, Ms. Soni Singh, Mr. Abhinay, Advocates for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner Sh. Lajja Shankar Mishra seeks the

appointment firstly to the post of Vice-Principal and then to the post of

Principal of the respondent No. 2-school, namely, Lady Irwin Senior

Secondary School.

2. At the outset, I must concede that it has been very difficult to

understand the averments in the writ petition as the writ petition does not

seem to be very happily drafted, however, what would be the issues in the

writ petition become clear from the questions of law which have been

framed by the petitioner in para 5 of the writ petition and which reads as

under:

"5. Question of law

That the following questions of law arose for adjudication by this Hon'ble Court:

(a) Whether the appointment of the respondent no. 4 at the post of Vice-Principal was legal, not arbitrary and as per law?

(b) Whether the unqualified PGT can be promoted as Vice-

Principal and Principal?

(c) Whether non promotion of the petitioner at the post of Vice-Principal was illegal, with mala fide intention and against the law.

(d) Whether the apprehension of unfair selection process due to non supply of requisite service records including the ACR's by the school management is tenable?

(e) Whether non consideration of the petitioner for the post of Vice-Principal amounts to violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner is more qualified than the respondent No. 4.

(f) Whether the relief sought by the petitioner is justified?"

3. On the basis of the aforesaid questions of law, the following reliefs

are claimed:

"(i) the Constitution of India allowing the present petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of , directing the respondent No. 2 to pass reasoned and speaking order on the representation dt. 05.12.2009 pending for consideration before him within stipulated time.

(ii) Declaring the promotion of the respondent no. 4 at the post of Vice-Principal as null and void ab-initio by holding the DPC proceedings and its recommendation dt. 30.12.2006 as a non-east one to hold a review DPC for the post of Vice- Principal afresh giving opportunity of fair selection to the eligible candidates including the petitioner and only then hold DPC for the post of Principal, being promotion as a fundamental right with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Pass and other or further order (s) direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

4. A reading of the questions of law along with the reliefs claimed in the

writ petition shows that what essentially the petitioner claims is that he

ought to have been appointed as the Vice-Principal and once he was

appointed as a Vice-Principal he was also fit to be considered for the post of

Principal.

5. I may also state that though the counsel for the petitioner sought to

argue that the petitioner straightway is entitled to be appointed as a

Principal, I do not find any specific averments in the writ petition as to what

are the qualifications for being appointed as a Principal and how the

petitioner satisfies each of those qualifications. Also, questions of law

make it clear that no direct appointment to the post of Principal was sought

and firstly the appointment was sought to the post of Vice-Principal since

the petitioner was not successful in the selection process for the Vice-

Principal held during March/April 2006. It is this process of March/April

2006 which is challenged in the writ petition.

6. This writ petition in my opinion is liable to be dismissed on the

preliminary grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence inasmuch as the

respondent No. 4 (whose appointment is sought to be quashed and the

petitioner claims that in fact he ought to have been appointed as Vice-

Principal) was appointed as the Vice-Principal in the selection process of

March/April 2006 and in which process the petitioner has also participated,

but this writ petition is filed much later in 2010 ie after about four years of

the respondent no.4 having taken over the charge as Vice-Principal in

March/April 2006. If the petitioner, and as is sought to be urged on behalf

of the petitioner, was rightly aggrieved because his ACRs were not seen and

there were wrong remarks in the reference made against the petitioner in the

letter dated 18.03.2006, then surely it was open to the petitioner to

immediately represent to the appropriate authority or file a writ petition in

the Court to challenge the selection process. Admittedly, the first

representation by the petitioner for challenging the process of appointment

of the Vice-Principal in March/April 2006 was only by means of

representation dated 05.12.2009 i. e almost after three years and nine months

after the Vice-Principal took charge pursuant to the selection process of

March/April 2006. In such circumstances, quite clearly, the present writ

petition is filed in the year 2010 is barred by delay, laches and acquiescence.

No doubt Limitation Act,1963 does not apply to a petition under Article 226

but the period of limitation ordinarily needs to be kept in mind and delay is

overlooked only if the aggrieved person in a reasonable time has made a

representation and which is not decided and simply kept pending, and which

is not the position in this case.

7. Since the petitioner is not successful in seeking appointment to the

post of Vice-Principal as the writ petition is being dismissed on account of

delay, laches and acquiescence the consequential relief of the petitioner

seeking appointment to the post of Principal also cannot lie because the

appointment to the post of Principal is sought by the petitioner as a

consequence of his entitlement to be appointed as the Vice-Principal of the

respondent No. 2.

8. In view of the above, there is no need to discuss the merits of the case

and the writ petition is dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches and

acquiescence leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JULY 05, 2013 godara