Bhaveshkumar Ratnabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 6221 Guj

    C/LPA/1121/2021                            ORDER DATED: 13/07/2022



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1121 of 2021
                                 In
           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12343 of 2021

==========================================================
                BHAVESHKUMAR RATNABHAI PATEL
                               Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA D DAVDA(8354) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
         and
         HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT

                          Date : 13/07/2022

                            ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)

[1.0] By way of the present appeal under Clause 15 of the

Letters Patent, the appellant - original petitioner has challenged

the impugned judgment dated 12343 of 2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition by which

learned Single Judge has summarily dismissed the writ petition

on the ground that the recruitment process which had taken

place in the year 2011 came to be challenged after a period of 10

years by filing the writ petition in the year 2021.

[2.0] Mr. Aditya D. Davda, learned advocate appearing for the

C/LPA/1121/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/07/2022

appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge of this

Court in Special Civil Application No.483 of 2019 by order dated

18.2.2019 has held that some delay on the part of the petitioner

in filing the writ petition can be considered and the petition can

be decided on merits. He, therefore, would submit that the

present appeal may be admitted and the matter may be

remanded to learned Single Judge for fresh consideration on

merits.

[3.0] On the other hand, Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned Assistant

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 has

opposed the present appeal and would submit that it is an

undisputed fact that the challenge in the writ petition is with

regard to the recruitment which had taken place in the year 2011.

She would further submit that the appellant has failed to

establish any reason before the learned Single Judge for

entertaining the writ petition after a period of 10 years. She

would further submit that the decision relied upon by the

learned advocate appearing for the appellant is not applicable

since in the said case, delay was of around 3 years whereas in the

present case, the delay is of 10 years. Ms. Jhala has relied upon

the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent

C/LPA/1121/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/07/2022

Appeal No.1002 of 2021 rendered on 02.02.2021 and would

submit that in the said case, the appellant had challenged the

decision of refusing him appointment after delay of 8 years and

the writ petition as well as appeal was dismissed by this Court on

the ground of unexplained delay. She, therefore, would submit

that the present appeal may be dismissed.

[4.0] We have heard learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and perused the judgment of the learned

Single Judge. It is an undisputed fact that the recruitment which

took place in the year 2011 was challenged after a period of 10

years in the year 2021 by filing writ petition without explaining

the delay and hence, the same was rightly dismissed by the

learned Single Judge on the ground of delay.

[5.0] The decision relied upon by the learned advocate Ms. Jhala

rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1002 of 2021 on

02.02.2021 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The

observations made in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 read as under:-

"5.1 The decision of the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 237] which was relied on by learned single Judge, enunciates the principle that the delay would bar the relief even in such cases where a person is seeking the

C/LPA/1121/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/07/2022

benefit on the basis that similarly situated persons were granted the benefit. The doctrine of acquiescence would come into play.

5.2 Following observations were reproduced from Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra),

"4. It is true that ordinarily when an employee is given relief by the court, similarly situated persons would not be denied the relief on the plain ground that such person had not approached the court. However, this may not be a rule of universal truth more particularly in the cases which are marred by delay, latches and acquiescence and therefore, barred for relief."

5.2.1 The Supreme Court sounded a caution in this regard in the following words,

"However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had

C/LPA/1121/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/07/2022

approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-

sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim." (para 22.2)

5.2.2 It was stated,

"5. In the present case, the aforesaid principle applies inasmuch as more than eight years have lapsed. It was after a yawning gap of eight years that the petitioner filed present petition seeking appointment in connection with the recruitment process which was held in the year 2011 and in which the petitioner had participated at that time. Not only that the delay and inaction on part of the petitioner is evident, there is also no justification whatsoever except a vague reason stated in ground (h) in the memorandum of the petition that, "impugned order was passed in the year 2011 and petitioner is now challenging the same after delay". It was stated further by the petitioner that after he was disqualified in the process of

C/LPA/1121/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/07/2022

recruitment in the year 2011 he became hopeless therefore delay may be countenanced. This does not convince to make it plausible and acceptable ground to countenance the gross delay of more than 8 years in approaching the court and seeking relief, which is otherwise stale in itself."

[6.0] Hence, we do not find any reason to entertain the present

appeal and hence, the same stands dismissed.

(A.J. DESAI, J.)

(MAUNA M. BHATT, J.)

Ajay