Priya Ranjan Samal And Anr. vs Vice Chancellor Ignou And Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 1521 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 7380/2003

%                                                        22nd March, 2017

PRIYA RANJAN SAMAL AND ANR.                                  ..... Petitioners
                 Through: None.

                          versus

VICE CHANCELLOR IGNOU AND ORS.                ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate for R-1-3.

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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the two petitioners seek the relief of quashing of the seniority list

dated 11.9.2000 for the post of Technical Assistants in the Communication

Division of the respondent no.2/IGNOU/employer, wherein the respondent

no. 4 has been shown as senior to the petitioners.

2. Petitioners were appointed to the post of Technicians in the

Communication Division of the respondent no. 2 with effect from 11.6.1993

and 25.6.1993, respectively. Respondent no. 4 was, however, appointed

earlier on 3.1.1992. Respondent no. 4 was appointed as a Technician for

working under the Computer Division of the respondent no. 2.

3. Petitioners claim that in the seniority list dated 11.9.2000 the

respondent no. 4 has been wrongly placed as senior to the petitioners and

therefore the seniority list be quashed. Petitioners contend that they are

appointed in Communication Division which is a separate cadre than the

Computer Division in which the respondent no. 4 has been appointed and

which is a separate cadre.

4. The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two

counts. The first reason is that the petition is barred by the doctrine of delay

and laches by applying the principle of limitation. The second reason is that

petitioners have failed to substantiate their stand that the Computer Division

is a separate cadre which is governed by separate rules for promotion from

the post of Technicians to Technical Assistants.

5. On the aspect of limitation and application of doctrine of delay

and laches, the Supreme Court has held in the judgment in the case of State

of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 that

though the Limitation Act, 1963 strictly does not apply to a writ petition, the

principles of the Limitation Act apply so that writ petitions have to be

dismissed by applying the doctrine of delay and laches. The relevant

paragraphs in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra) read as under:-

"52. In the very first appeal, the respondent filed writ petition on 11.11.2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6.10.1989 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 without

furnishing any explanation for such inordinate delay and on laches on her part. Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963, makes it obligatory on the part of the court to dismiss the Suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period even though the limitation is not set up as a defence and there is no plea to raise the issue of limitation even at appellate stage because in some of the cases it may go to the root of the matter.

53. Needless to say that Limitation Act 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and laches. In a case like at hand, getting a particular pay scale may give rise to a recurring cause of action. In such an eventuality, the petition may be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and the court may refuse to grant relief for the initial period in case of an unexplained and inordinate delay. In the instant case, the Respondent claimed the relief from 1.1.1986 by filing a petition on 11.11.2005 but the High Court for some unexplained reason granted the relief w.e.f. 1.6.1984, though even the Notification dated 6.10.1989 makes it applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.

54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time."

6. In the present case it is undisputed that respondent no. 4 was

shown as senior to the petitioners in the seniority list of Technical Assistants

which was published on 26.3.1996. This is stated by the respondents in para

6 of its counter affidavit. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioners in reply to

para 6 admit that the seniority list of Technicians dated 26.3.1996 was

drawn up, but petitioners contend that such a seniority list showing the

respondent no. 4 as senior to the petitioners was wrongly drawn up.

Therefore, if the seniority list of 26.3.1996 was wrongly drawn up showing

the respondent no. 4 as senior to the petitioners, then within three years of

26.3.1996, in accordance with the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra), this seniority list had to be

challenged by the petitioners but the petitioners admittedly have not done

so. Petitioners now by seeking to challenge the seniority list dated

11.9.2000 are effectively challenging the seniority list dated 26.3.1996, and

therefore, petitioners by a circuitous route cannot now be allowed to

challenge the seniority list dated 26.3.1996 by this writ petition filed in

November, 2003. I may also note that the seniority list dated 26.3.1996 was

in fact acted upon by the employer, inasmuch as, in terms of this list

respondent no. 4/Sh. Virender Singh Chhikara was promoted to the post of

Technical Assistant in February, 1997 and the petitioners were promoted to

the same post of Technical Assistant only later on 2.7.1998. Therefore all

the concerned parties, including the petitioners, had duly acted upon the

seniority list dated 26.3.1996, and which was not challenged, and which has

therefore become final and hence now cannot be challenged through this

writ petition.

7. The present writ petition, therefore, by applying the ratio of the

judgment in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra) is hit by the doctrine of

delay and laches by applying the principle of limitation, and therefore the

writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

The writ petition is also dismissed because respondents in their counter

affidavit have stated that the post of Technical Assistant in the Computer

Division has no separate channel of promotion and all Technical Assistants,

whether they be in the Communication Division or in the Computer

Division, form the same feeder cadre for promotion to the higher post and

which position the petitioners have not been able to dispute because I have

already stated above that petitioners have failed to substantiate and file if

and what are the separate recruitment and promotion rules to the higher post

than that of a Technical Assistant for Computer Division is concerned, and

therefore, respondents are correct in arguing that the post of Technical

Assistants in Communication Division as also the Computer Division are

taken in totality as a same feeder cadre for promotion to the posts of

Technical Assistants.

8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and

the same is therefore dismissed. No costs.

MARCH 22, 2017                                    VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK