Jagmohan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3539 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagmohan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 March, 2025

                                    Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038974



                                                                 2025:PHHC:038974

CWP-8011-2025                    :1:

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

115                                            CWP-8011-2025 (O&M)
                                               Date of decision : 21.03.2025
JAGMOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
                                                               ...... Petitioners
                           VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
                                                              ...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA

                            ***
Present :-   Mr. Harsh Bargat, Advocate and
             Mr. Govind Arora, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

                           ***

Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the petitioners have challenged public

notices dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure P-2) and 28.12.2017 (Annexure P-3)

whereby, the examination held for recruitment to the post of Senior

Assistant/Inspector, pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.07.2015 was

cancelled and notice regarding re-examination was issued.

2. The facts of the present case are that the Government of Punjab,

through the Department of Local Government issued an advertisement on

01.07.2015 for filling up of various posts in Municipal Corporations, Municipal

Councils, Nagar Panchayats, Improvement Trusts and Punjab Water Supply

and Sewerage Board. In response to the advertisement, the petitioners applied

for the post of Senior Assistant/Inspector.

3. It transpires that there was certain allegations/complaints

regarding the leakage of examination papers for various posts. The Vigilance

Bureau investigated the matter and it came to the notice that there was a

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038974

2025:PHHC:038974

CWP-8011-2025 :2:

leakage of papers in the examination. In pursuance to the above said Vigilance

Bureau's Investigation, the State of Punjab issued a public notice dated

28.11.2016 whereby, examinations held for various posts, including the post of

Senior Assistant/Inspector were cancelled. Thereafter, another public notice

was issued dated 27.12.2017 regarding re-examination for 456 posts which

included the post of Senior Assistant/Inspector.

4. The petitioners now after 07 years has filed the writ petition

challenging the above mentioned public notices dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure P-

2) and 28.12.2017 (Annexure P-3) and with the prayer that respondents be

directed to declare the result of the post of Senior Assistant/Inspector which

was advertised in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.07.2015.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. It is well-settled law that where there is an inordinate delay in

filing the writ petition, the writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained.

A perusal of the facts of the present case would show that no explanation has

been given by the petitioner in knocking the doors of this Court after such an

inordinate delay.

7. In State of M.P. and others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others,

(1986) 4 SCC 566, the Supreme Court has held that the power of the High

Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is discretionary and that the High Court in the exercise of its

discretionary power would not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or

the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there was inordinate delay on the part of

the petitioner in filing of the writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038974

2025:PHHC:038974

CWP-8011-2025 :3:

explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the

exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The relevant extract of the judgment in

Nandlal Jaiswal's case (surpa) reads as under:-

"24. Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with reference to various decisions of this Court where it has been emphasised time and again that where there is inordinate and unexplained delay and third party rights are created in the intervening period, the High Court would decline to interfere, even if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. We may only mention in the passing two decisions of this Court one in Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979)3 SCR 1014 and the other in Ashok Kumar v. Collector, Raipur, (1980)1 SCR 491. We may point out that in R.D. Shetty's case (supra), even though the State action was held to be unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner more than five months after the acceptance of the tender of the fourth respondent and during that period, the fourth respondent had incurred considerable expenditure, aggregating to about Rs.1.25 lakhs, in making arrangements for putting up the restaurant and the snack bar. Of

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038974

2025:PHHC:038974

CWP-8011-2025 :4:

course, this rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a straitjacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay or creation of third party rights would by their very nature be few and far between. Ultimately it would be a matter within the discretion of the Court; ex hypothesi every discretion must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it."

8. In New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh and others,

(2007) 9 SCC 278, the Supreme Court held that though there is no period of

limitation provided for filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India but ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a

reasonable time and that discretionary relief may not be exercised in favour

of those who approach the Court after a long time especially when there is

no explanation offered for such delay. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of Pan Singh's

case (supra) are reproduced below:-

"16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be

lost sight of. Respondents herein filed a Writ Petition after 17 years. They

did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein,

did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible

opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the

reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their

case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were

recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay.

After such a long time, therefore, the Writ Petitions could not have been

entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the

discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who

approach the Court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038974

2025:PHHC:038974

CWP-8011-2025 :5:

for exercise of equitable jurisdiction.

17. Although, there is no period of limitation provided for

filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

ordinarily, Writ Petition should be filed within a reasonable time."

9. In the light of the facts of the present case and aforesaid law laid

down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the present writ petition is liable to be

dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

10. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.

                                               (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
21.03.2025                                              JUDGE
Rimpal
             Whether speaking/reasoned                 Yes
             Whether Reportable :                      No




                                      5 of 5