Madhya Pradesh High Court

Uttam Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2022

Author: Vishal Mishra

                                                          1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                                            WRIT PETITION No. 14481 of 2014

                                 BETWEEN:-
                                 UTTAM KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI RAM
                                 PRATAP PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
                                 VILLAGE CHARHET POST BANSUKLI TEHSIL
                                 JAISINGHNAGAR    SHAHDOL    (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                                 (BY SHRI MUKESH K. VERMA - ADVOCATE)

                                 AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE  COLLECTOR    SHAHDOL,           DISTRICT-
                                 SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SHAHDO,
                                 DISTRICT-SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER JAISINGHNAGAR,
                                 DISTRICT       SHAHDOL JAISINGHNAGAR,
                                 DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT
                                 SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           6.    CHIEF     EXECUTIVE     OFFICER       JANPAD
                                 PA N C H A YA T JAISINGHNAGAR,       DISTRICT
                                 SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           7.    DISTRICT COORDINATOR OFFICER SHAHDOL,
                                 DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                 (BY SHRI MANHAR DIXIT - PANEL LAWYER)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
6:40:04 PM
                                                                2
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"(i) To call for the records pursuant to the instant subject matter for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

(ii) To direct the respondents to restart the functioning of the EGS centre Harijan tola, village-Charhent, and appoint the petitioner on the post of Guruji in compliance of the order passed by the respondent No.4.

(iii) To direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher and grant pay scale of Shikshakarmi Grade-III.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along with the cost of the writ petition."

It is the case of the petitioner that the Government has initiated a drive to enhance a literacy in the State of M.P. and for the same the Education Guarantee Scheme was introduced. A proposal was made by the local residence and Gram Panchayat Charhent for establishment of E.G.S. School and appoint the petitioner on the post of Guruji. Resolution to the aforesaid effect was passed on 8.2.1997. The same was approved by the respondent No.6 and the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi in the said centre on 17.9.1997. The petitioner has undergone a training of 12 years and joined his service on 3.10.1997. Thereafter, a decision was taken to close the EGS centre in the year 1998. It is a case of the petitioner that inquiry was conducted into the matter by the Tehsildar and the report was submitted an as per the observations made in the report, it would be proper to restart the functioning of EGS centre. Several representations have been filed by the petitioner claiming the relief of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 10/18/2022 6:40:04 PM

opening of EGS centre and permitting him to continue in service. The fact remains that the appointment of the petitioner was in the year 1997. The EGS centre was closed in the year 1998. The writ petition was filed in the year 2014 and the reasons for delay in filing the petition is that the petitioner has given several representations which are pending consideration and not been decided. In para 4 of the writ petition under the head of Delay, if any, in filing the petition and explanation there for, has not disclosed any reason for delay in filing the petition.

The law is settled with respect to a sleeping litigant in the case Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

"21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice- oriented, nonpedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.

21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

21.5. (v) Lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 10/18/2022 6:40:04 PM

condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go-by in the name of liberal approach.

21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 10/18/2022 6:40:04 PM

22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:-

22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.

22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.

22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.

22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.

In (2011) 3 SCC 436 (State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty), the Apex Court opined as under:-

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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 10/18/2022 6:40:04 PM

cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time.

In W.P. No.5409/2012 (Jageshwar Kurmi (Patel) vs. State of M.P. & Others) decided on 30.8.2017 and in W.P. No.10923/2019 (Dr. Sunil Surange vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 10.3.2022, wherein, it is categorically held that a sleeping litigant is not entitled for any relief.

Mere filing of repeated representations will not give any cause of action to the petitioner. In such circumstances, in absence of any explanation for delay in filing the writ petition, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.