Rajesh Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3056 Del

                          $~22
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          +      W.P.(C) 12682/2021 & C.M.No.39947/2021

                                 RAJESH SHARMA                                      ..... Petitioner
                                             Through            Mr.Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate.

                                                   versus

                                 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                   ..... Respondents
                                               Through  Mr.Vivekanand Mishra, Advocate.


                          %                                   Date of Decision: 12th November, 2021.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

                                                            JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (Oral):

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for appointment as a Constable (GD) in the SSB from the year 2011 with back wages and all consequential benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, was selected by the Service Selection Commission (Central Area), Allahabad, through common examination conducted for Constable (GD) Examination 2011, for CRPF, BSF, CISF & SSB. He states that in the selection list dated

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:13.11.2021 13:48:51 4th February, 2015 "Candidate Not reported" was mentioned before the Petitioner's name. He, however, states that the Petitioner had not received any call letter or instructions requiring him to report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Petitioner had submitted all his documents with the respondents on 12th October, 2016 well before the last date of submission i.e. 30th December, 2016. He states that despite completing all the formalities as required by the Respondents, the Petitioner was not selected for the post. He further states that the Petitioner had addressed various letters and representation to the Respondents enquiring about the status of his employment enquiring about the status to which there was no response. However, vide letter dated 29th October, 2020 while replying to the representation of the petitioner, the respondents had informed the petitioner that his dossier has not been received till date.

5. This Court is of the view that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the examination and selection procedure conducted from 2011 to 2015, he should have approached the High Court in 2015 itself when the Petitioner did not receive any intimation from the Respondents regarding his appointment or at least within a reasonable time i.e. from 12th October, 2016

- when the petitioner despite submitting his documents had not received any response.

6. Grant of any relief, as prayed for, at this stage to the petitioner would have an adverse affect down the chain and the seniority of a large number of officers in SSB would be adversely affected. The Supreme Court in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Gopal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 101 has held that delay defeats equity and law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. The relevant portion of the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:13.11.2021 13:48:51 said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fencesitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus:

"17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". ...It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment."

17. Similarly, in Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India this Court while considering the claim of candidates who, despite being higher in merit, exercised their right to parity much after those who were though lower in merit but were diligently agitating their rights, this Court observed that:

"27. ...It becomes an obligation to take into consideration the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a matter of great significance that at one point of time equity that existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance and paves the path of extinction with the passage of time."

7. It has also been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that repeated representations by the petitioner would not extend the time period to file the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:13.11.2021 13:48:51 writ petition. Consequently, the present writ petition along with pending application is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

MANMOHAN, J

NAVIN CHAWLA, J NOVEMBER 12, 2021 KA

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:13.11.2021 13:48:51