Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission & Anr. vs Gaurav Kumar on 2 April, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~99
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 02.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 4104/2025
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC
versus
GAURAV KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 19212/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4104/2025 & CM APPL. 19064/2025, CM APPL.
19065/2025
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal (PB), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned,
"Tribunal") in Original Application No. 3145/2024 (hereinafter
referred to as the, "O.A.") titled as Gaurav Kumar v. Staff Selection
Commission & Anr, allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent
with the following directions:
"10. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision
passed by the co-ordinate bench of this
Tribunal in the aforesaid OA, we cannot take a
divergent view in the matter. Accordingly, the
present OA is also disposed of with a direction
to the competent authority amongst the
respondents to conduct a fresh medical
examination of the applicant by way of
constituting an appropriate medical board in
any government hospital except the hospital
which has already conducted the initial and
the review medical examination. Appropriate
orders with respect to the candidature of the
applicant on the basis of the outcome of such
an independent/fresh medical examination be
passed thereafter under intimation to the
applicant.
11. The aforesaid directions shall be complied
with within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In
the event of the applicant is being declared
medically fit and subject to his meeting other
criteria, he shall be given appointment
forthwith. The applicant, in such an
eventuality, shall also be entitled to grant of
all consequential benefits, however, strictly on
notional basis. No costs."
3. As it is evident from the above, the impugned order had granted
six weeks' time to the respondent to comply with the directions passed
by the learned Tribunal. However, the present petition has been filed
by the petitioners on 31.03.2025, that is, with a delay of almost eight
months, without any justification thereof.
4. In this regard, we may draw reference to the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage
Board & Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, wherein the
Court has held as under:-
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches
should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ
court is required to weigh the explanation
offered and the acceptability of the same. The
court should bear in mind that it is exercising
an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As
a constitutional court it has a duty to protect
the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it
is to keep itself alive to the primary principle
that when an aggrieved person, without
adequate reason, approaches the court at his
own leisure or pleasure, the court would be
under legal obligation to scrutinise whether
the lis at a belated stage should be entertained
or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of
equity. In certain circumstances delay and
laches may not be fatal but in most
circumstances inordinate delay would only
invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at
the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity
and inaction on the part of a litigant -- a
litigant who has forgotten the basic norms,
namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief
of time" and second, law does not permit one
to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does
bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."
5. In the present case, the respondent had approached the learned
Tribunal being aggrieved of the rejection of his candidature for
appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in the Delhi Police
on the ground of his perceived unfitness. The learned Tribunal has
directed his re-medical examination. In such matters, the petitioners
have to act with expedition as delay not only causes irretrievable
injustice to the respondent, who would keep waiting in hope that he
may be declared fit in such re-examination and may secure
employment and therefore, leave out other opportunities of
employment that may come his way in the interregnum, but also to the
petitioners as well in form of administrative chaos if the respondent is
to be later offered employment. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be
allowed to challenge the impugned order at its leisure and in the
meantime defy the direction of the learned Tribunal with impunity.
6. In view of the unexplained delay, we do not deem it proper to
interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of our extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The petition, is accordingly, dismissed on account of delay and
latches.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
APRIL 2, 2025/Pr/S/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
