S.P. Yadav And Ors. vs Lok Sabha & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 59 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          W.P.(C) No.162/2013

%                                                     7th January, 2015

S.P. YADAV AND ORS.                                     ......Petitioners
                           Through:      Mr. K. Venkatraman, Advocate.



                           VERSUS



LOK SABHA & Anr.                                      ...... Respondents

                           Through:      Ms. Maninder Acharya, Senior
                                         Advocate with Mr. Yashish Chandra,
                                         Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

filed by four petitioners seeking relief that they ought to have been appointed as

Security Assistants Grade-I (SAG-I) employees with the respondent no.1 and

not as Security Assistant Grade-II (SAG-II). This writ petition was filed in the

year 2013 and reliefs which are sought are of notional appointment to the posts

of SAG-I in terms of a selection process which admittedly took place way back

in the year 2002. Not only the writ petition is filed after about 11 years,

petitioners have in fact worked at the posts of SAG-II from the year 2002 when

they were appointed in the post of SAG-II in the selfsame selection process.

2. The following are the relief clauses of the writ petition:-

" (a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for setting aside the decision of the respondents regarding non fulfilment of the eligibility criteria for appointment to the grade of Security Assistant Grade-I (Tech.) communicated through RTI dt. 14.11.2012 (Annexure P-1) in respect of the petitioners as illegal discretionary and arbitrary;

(b) issue of writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to consider/grant notional appointment of SAG-I (Tech.) to the petitioners w.e.f. December 2002 with notional consequential benefits;

(c) Pass such other and further orders, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

3. Whatever may be the wording of the relief clauses, essentially

what the petitioners contend is that in the selection process of the year 2002,

the petitioners should have been appointed at the posts of SAG-I and not SAG-

II in which they were actually appointed. The petitioners rely upon a reply to

an RTI query raised in the year 2012 to argue that petitioners actually have got

such marks in the 2002 selection process whereby they had to be appointed to

the posts of SAG-I and not SAG-II.

4. In my opinion, getting of a reply to an RTI query in the year 2012

cannot change arising of the cause of action which would be of the year 2002

when as per the petitioners they were wrongly appointed to the posts of SAG-II

and not SAG-I.

5. Also, filing of repeated representations cannot take away the

effect of delay and laches because no doubt there is no prescribed period of

limitation for filing of a writ petition, however, Courts have taken the limitation

period for filing of a suit claiming similar reliefs as a guide to determine the

aspects of delay and laches inasmuch as otherwise persons whose rights to

reliefs are barred on account of the Limitation Act, 1963 by filing of suits, such

persons can seek to overcome the law by seeking the same reliefs in a writ

petition merely because the respondents are State or authorities of the State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to argue that petitioners

qualified the requirements of appointment to the posts of SAG-I and they were

wrongly appointed to the posts of SAG-II and to which learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondents argued that as per those very Rules of the year

2002, the selection committee made a particular interpretation of the Rules and

accordingly appointed different persons at posts of SAG-I and SAG-II and

essentially therefore if there is any illegality in the action of the selection

committee in interpreting the extant rules for appointment to the posts of SAG-I

and SAG-II such a writ petition ought to have been filed within a reasonable

period of completion of selection process in the year 2002, and the present writ

petition filed after 11 years is thus argued to be clearly barred by delay and

laches. I may note that this writ petition came up for admission on 11.1.2013

when the following order was passed:-

"CM No.331/2013(for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of.

WP(C) No.162/2013

1. This writ petition under Article 226 actually seeks benefit with effect from 2002, but is filed in the year 2013. Though prima facie there may be delay and latches, I am inclined to issue notice for a limited purpose because the counsel for the petitioners states that there was no specific recruitment rule requiring specific qualifications for the post to which the petitioners were entitled to in the year 2002 viz. Security Assistant Grade-I. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether there are specific recruitment rules requiring specific qualifications for the post and if that be so, possibly, subject to further arguments, this writ petition may be barred by delay and latches.

2. Notice.

3. Counsel for the respondents accepts notice.

4. Counter affidavit be filed within a period of 4 weeks from today.

5. Rejoinder thereto be filed within 4 weeks thereafter.

6. List on 15th May, 2013."

7. The aforesaid order shows that a representation was made on

behalf of the petitioners that in the year 2002 there were no specific notified

rules for the post of SAG-I and therefore in spite of the aspect of delay and

laches with respect to appointments made way back in the year 2002, notice

was issued in this writ petition only on the ground that there were no rules

which were said to exist for appointment to the post of SAG-I. Today, counsel

for the petitioners, however, concedes that in fact there were necessary rules for

appointment to the posts of SAG-II, SAG-I and Senior Security Assistants and

the petitioners themselves had filed these rules as Annexure P-6 to the writ

petition. Therefore, the effect is that there were in fact rules pursuant to which

appointments were made of different persons including the petitioners to the

posts of SAG-I and SAG-II with the respondent no. 1, and if as per the case of

the petitioners they were wrongly appointed to the posts of SAG-II instead of

SAG-I, then, petitioners should have challenged that alleged illegal action of

the respondents of the year 2002 in around the year of period of limitation for

filing the appropriate judicial proceedings. It is also not the case of the

petitioners that they had filed the petition so late because they were assured by

the respondents that respondent will re-look the appointments made of the

petitioners at the post of SAG-II and will favourably consider the grant to the

petitioners of the SAG-I posts. Therefore, giving of repeated representations,

in my opinion, cannot take away the effect of delay and laches.

8. Legal rights, however strong have to be exercised in accordance

with law. If legal rights are not enforced within time in the Court of law, such

rights lapse, and merely on the ground of equity, courts cannot interfere by

setting aside the principles of limitation and the principles of delay and laches

so far as filing a writ petition is concerned.

9. To complete the narration I must state that petitioners around the

year 2009 have been promoted to the posts of SAG-I, and therefore this petition

is essentially only for monetary emoluments for the posts of SAG-I from 2002

to 2009, and therefore the reliefs claimed are also in the facts of this case barred

by the principle of 'no work no pay'.

10. In view of the above, since there were in fact extant rules in the

year 2002 for appointment to the posts of SAG-I and SAG-II, petitioners

participated in the selection process and were appointed to the posts of SAG-II

and in which posts they have worked thereafter, and the fact that no judicial

proceedings were initiated to challenge the alleged illegal appointments of the

petitioners to the posts of SAG-II in around the period of limitation and taken

with the fact that there is no assurance given by the respondents to the

petitioners of their cases being favourably considered to the posts of SAG-I,

this writ petition suffers from delay and laches and is accordingly dismissed.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

JANUARY 07, 2015                                        VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne