Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamla Prasad Manjhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 December, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 31057 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
KAMLA PRASAD MANJHI S/O LATE SHRI BANMALI,
AGED-54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
VARGANYA DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.K. SHARMA- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIST. EDUATION OFFICER DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
directed against the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by Respondent no.3,
whereby the representation filed by the petitioner in compliance of the order
dated 28.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. No.18511/2023 has been
rejected, alleging it to be passed in a very arbitrary manner without dwelling
upon the documents and considering the submissions of the petitioner and
giving appointment to him on the post of Assistant Teacher despite of the fact
that the name of the petitioner finds place in the selection list of the year 1993.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order submits
that in the year 1993 respondent no.2 has initiated special recruitment drive for
SC candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher under the SC/ST welfare
scheme in which the petitioner was selected and his name appeared in the
select/merit list at serial no.17. It was further submitted that name of the
petitioner appeared in the said merit list only after scrutinizing the documents
with regard to the category to which the petitioner belongs, but again vide letter
dated 30.06.1993, the petitioner was again called upon to submit a caste
certificate issued by District Coordinator, Aadim Jati Kalyan, District Datia on
or before 20.7.1993 and further it was mentioned there in that in case the said
documents are not submitted before that date, his application for appointment
would not be considered.
It was further submitted that the petitioner being aggrieved by the
issuance of the aforesaid letter had preferred an original application no.780/1993
before State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), Gwalior, which was decided vide
order dated 22.10.1994 wherein it was held that the authorities when have
already received the documents with regard to caste of the petitioner, were not
justified and required again to call upon the petitioner to submit a fresh
certificate issued by a particular authority and further if the respondents therein
had any doubt with regard to the caste of the present petitioner, they could have
enquired into the matter themselves and could have taken decision, but since the
said enquiry was not conducted, directions were issued to conduct an enquiry
for their satisfaction within the period of 30 days thereafter through an official
agency and after such scrutiny they were directed to issue proper order in
relation to the appointment for the post office Assistant Teachers.
It was further submitted that even after passing of the order passed by
the SAT no enquiry was conducted and no satisfaction was drawn by the
authorities, but they kept the matter pending and even after repeated requests of
the petitioner to appoint him on the post of Assistant Teacher, no heed was
given to the said requests and even the representation dated 19.01.1995 was not
decided. It was further submitted that it was only on 11.04.2023, after failing
from everywhere, that he was constrained to prefer another representation
before the competent authority i.e. the District Education Officer who vide letter
dated 21.04.2023 had again directed to submit the documents which were
already available with him.
It was further submitted that in pursuance to the aforesaid, a letter dated
15.05.2023 was written by the present petitioner to the District Education
Officer wherein the information regarding the order of the SAT dated
20.10.1994 was brought to his notice and it was submitted that he may be
allowed to join the services. It was lastly submitted that when the petitioner
didn't received any response, he moved another Writ Petition No.18511/2023
for seeking an innocuous prayer from this court, to decide the
application/representation of the petitioner which was accepted and directions
were issued to the respondent authorities to consider the
application/representation and take necessary decision in the matter which came
to be decided vide order dated 27.09.2023, but again on similar lines, as of
earlier, the said representation has been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner who
is being running from pillar to post since 1993 is again constrained to approach
this court seeking relief of his appointment for which he was entitled in the year
1993 itself.
Per contra Shri Deepak Khot, learned counsel for the respondent/State
on advance copy submits that no relief as claimed by the petitioner could be
granted to him as it is a hopelessly belated claim which the petitioner is trying to
raise before this Court when it is a settled proposition of law that a person
sitting tight over his own rights, without any grievance, for ages cannot revive its
claim under the garb of deciding the representation.
It was further submitted that admittedly, the selection process for the
post of Assistant Teacher for SC/ST category under the SC/ST welfare scheme
had taken place in the year 1993, thereafter, since certain documents with regard
to the caste of the petitioner were sought from the petitioner had preferred an
original application before the then SAT which was allowed and certain
directions were issued to the authorities to conduct an enquiry themselves if
they have any doubt with regard to caste certificate submitted by the petitioner
and, thereafter, make appointment if the certificates submitted by the petitioner
were found to be in order and admittedly the said order was passed on
20.10.1994 and, thereafter, the petitioner sat over its own right and did not
agitate or brought to the notice of the respondent authorities the order passed
by the SAT, except for a sole representation dated 19.01.1995, which bears no
receiving seal or signatures of the person who had received it or how it was
served and it was only in the month of April, 2023 that another representation
was moved to the District Education Officer, who took the note of the facts of
the letter dated 30.06.1993 and directed the petitioner to submit the documents
as required which, though, appears to have been issued, but could not condone
the delay itself made by the petitioner in approaching the authorities.
To bolster his submissions, he had placed reliance in the matter of State
of Orissa and Another vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in 2011 (3) SCC
436, wherein the honorable apex Court has taken a stern view in service matters
where a person had slept over his own rights and had woken up from slumber
after decades and is claiming rights on the basis of some list which does not
give a substantial right even to the petitioner to raise his claim. Thus, it was
submitted that the present petition being devoid of any substance deserve to be
dismissed.
Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
The facts which are admitted and not denied by the other side are that in
a special drive for selection of SC/ST candidates under the SC/ST welfare
scheme applications were invited from the candidates belonging to the said
categories for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and the petitioner
who was one of the aspirants had submitted his application and as per the merit
list his name appeared at serial no.17, thereafter, the petitioner was called upon
by Deputy Director Education, Division Datia vide letter dated 30.06.1993, to
submit a certificate issued by District Coordinator, Aadim Jati Kalyan District
Datia on or before 20.07.1993. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner
preferred an Original Application No.780/1993 before the then SAT, wherein
the SAT while allowing the application directed the authorities to conduct
enquiry by themselves if they have any doubt with regard to the caste certificate
submitted by the petitioner and they have no right to call for another cast
certificate from District Coordinator, Aadim Jati Kalyan, District Datia and,
accordingly, gave 30 days time to do the needful and if everything is found in
order, the appointment be given to the petitioner. The said order of SAT is
admittedly of 22.10.1994 and, thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have filed a
representation dated 19.01.1995 to Deputy Director Education, which from the
record appears to have been received on 20.01.1995, and, thereafter, only in the
month of April 2023 to be precised on 11.04.2023 that the petitioner preferred a
representation before the District Education Officer, Datia seeking his
appointment in pursuance to the merit list of the year 1993. There is nothing or
recorded to show that after submission of the representation dated 19.01.1995,
the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities in any way or had
approached this Court agitating the non-consideration of the representation nor
had made any hue or cry with regard to the same, as there is no document
appended to the petition and at this late juncture filing of the representation by
the petitioner and issuance of direction by this Court for deciding the said
representation and rejection of the said representation would not confer any
right in his favor and the delay which the petitioner himself has caused in
agitating his claim, can be condoned. In the matter of State of Orissa and
Another vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in 2011 (3) SCC 436, the honorable
Supreme Court in para 53 and 54 has held as under:
53. Needless to say that the 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 petitioners 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 01.01.1986 by
filling a petition on 11.11.2005, but the High
Court for some unexplained reason granted the
relief w.e.f. 01.06.1984, though even the
notification dated 06.10.1989 makes it applicable
w.e.f. 01.01.1986.
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.
The aforesaid judgement clearly stipulates that person sleeping over his
own rights and waking up after slumber cannot gain sympathy due to any deeds
of the other side.
Further, no indefeasible right accrues to a successful candidate whose
name appears in the selection list to be given an appointment. In this regard
reference can be had to of the matter Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India
(supra) reported in AIR, 1991 SC 1612, wherein in para 7 it has been held as
under:
7..It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies
are notified for appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful candidates
acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which
cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the
notification merely amounts to an invitation to
qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on
their selection they do not acquire any right to the
post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so
indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all
or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean
that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary
manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has
to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if
the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is
bound to respect the comparative merit of the
candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no
discrimination can be permitted. This correct
position has been consistently followed by this Court,
and we do not find any discordant note in the
decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander
Marwaha and Ors. [1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Neelima
Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others, [1986] 4
SCC 268 and Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of
Punjab and Others, [1985] 1 SCR 899.
Thus, on this count, the petition has no merits.
There is another aspect which is required to be seen in the present matter.
The so-called select/merit list is of dated 30.06.1993 and it is not the contention
of the petitioner that it is still alive nor any document to that effect had been
appended along with the petition. It is an admitted and settled proposition of
law that any such list has a limited life and now after more than 30 years, it
cannot be said that the said list is still alive. On this count also the petitioner has
no case.
Thus, on both the counts the present petition cannot stand the decision
scrutiny.
Accordingly the admission is declined.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
