Sunil Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5419 Raj/2

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                        BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 479/2022

     Sunil Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Tulsi Ram Sharma, Aged
     About 45 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 15, Mohalla Ludiwas, Post
     Sadulpur, District Churu At Present Senior-Assistant, Rajkiya
     Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Bhamasi, Tehsil And District
     Churu (Raj.)
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                         Versus
     1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
            Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
     2.     The     Principal       Secretary,      Department         Of   Education
            Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
     3.     The     Principal       Secretary,      Department         Of   Personnel,
            Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
     4.     Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
     5.     Director, Elimentary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
     6.     District Education Officer, Churu, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

03/08/2022

REPORTABLE

(Per: Anoop Kumar Dhand, J)

Challenge in this Special appeal is led to the order

dated 04.10.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, by which the

writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed on the

ground of delay and laches.

(2 of 8) [SAW-479/2022]

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

was given appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk (for

short 'LDC') vide order dated 14.08.2003 under the Rajasthan

Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased

Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996').

Counsel submits that after getting appointment in the year 2003,

the appellant submitted representations on regular basis to the

Department for redressal of his grievance. Counsel submits that

even after rejection of the representations, several other

representations were submitted by the appellant but this fact has

not been considered by the learned Single Judge and the writ

petition was rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Counsel

submits that the representation submitted by the appellant was

rejected by the respondents on 26.02.2003 by observing that the

appellant obtained the requisite degree of B.Ed. from Kumaun

University in the year 1997, while the National Council for

Teachers Education (for short 'NCTE') has given recognition to the

aforesaid degree in the year 1998-99. Counsel submits that the

appellant was having qualification of B.Sc. & B.Ed., hence, he was

eligible to get appointment on the post of Teacher but without

considering his qualification, appointment was given to him on the

post of LDC. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the

learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ

petition. Counsel submits that looking to the facts and

circumstances and also looking to the qualifications of the

appellant, he is entitled to get appointment on the post of Teacher

with all consequential benefits.

Heard.

Perused the record and considered the arguments.

(3 of 8) [SAW-479/2022]

It is not in dispute that the appellant was given

appointment on the post of LDC on 14.08.2003. It appears that

the appellant was not satisfied with the said appointment and he

submitted a representation before the authorities for granting him

appointment on the post of Teacher on the basis of the

qualification of B.Sc. & B.Ed. The representation submitted by the

appellant was rejected by the authorities on 26.02.2003. After

rejection of the said representation, the appellant kept silence for

about 18 years and after an inordinate delay of 18 years, he filed

writ petition before the learned Single Judge for which no

reasonable explanation was submitted by him.

There is no substance in the arguments raised by the

counsel for the appellant that even after rejection of the

representation in the year 2003, he submitted several

representations in these 18 years.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of

India & Ors. Vs. Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5

Supreme Court Cases 798 in para No.10 held as under:-

10. Mere repeated filing of representations could not be sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the Court for grant of relief, was considered in Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society v. Kasbekar, by Chagla C.J. observing as follows: (SCC Online Bom : AIR p. 203, para 2).

"2.... Now, we have had occasion to point out that the only delay which this Court will excuse in presenting a petition is the delay which is caused by the Petitioner pursuing a legal remedy which is given to him. In this particular case the Petitioner did not pursue a legal remedy. The remedy he pursued was

(4 of 8) [SAW-479/2022]

extra-legal or extra-judicial. Once the final decision of government is given, a representation is merely an appeal for mercy or indulgence, but it is not pursuing a remedy which the law gave to the petitioner...."

Clearly, the writ petition was barred by delay and

laches. The petitioner approached this Court after a delay of

almost 18 years. There was no satisfactory explanation for laches

and the delay in filing the writ petition on the part of the writ

petitioner. Further third party rights have been entrenched. The

law has long set its face against indolent litigants who approach

this Court after a long delay.

The courts have consistently observed that delay and

laches on part of the litigant will disentitle him to any relief. In this

regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law with clarity

and observed it with consistency.

The line of authorities on this point are consistent and

long. The discussion will benefit from the authorities in point.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R & M Trust Vs.

Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others

reported at 2005 (3) SCC 91 held thus:-

"There is no doubt that delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot disturb the third party interest created on account of delay. Even otherwise also why Court should come to rescue of person who is not vigilant of his rights."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State

Road Transport Corporation Vs. Balwant Regular Motor

Service reported at AIR 1969 SC 329 held thus:-

(5 of 8) [SAW-479/2022]

"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy."

A similar sentiment was echoed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India reported at

2007 (9) SCC 274, as under:-

"The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction."

(6 of 8) [SAW-479/2022]

The delay would entrench independent third party

rights, which cannot be dislodged. The deposit of subsequent

events obscures the original claim and alters the cause itself. The

refusal to permit agitation of stale claims is based on the principle

of acquiescence. In certain situations, the party by its failure to

raise the claim in time waives its right to assert it after long delay.

Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.

& Ors. Vs. Ram Gopal, Civil Appeal No. 852 of 2020 (Arising

out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36253 of 2016),

decided on 30.01.2020, has held in para 16 as under:-

"Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence- sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced."

In Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti

Lal Agarwal and Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394, it was

held thus:-

"16. It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self imposed restraint

(7 of 8) [SAW-479/2022]

evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallized rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits."

If the writ petition filed by the appellant would have

been entertained by the learned Single Judge at the belated stage

of 18 years, then it would certainly disturb the seniority and

promotions of the other persons appointed in the Department in

the year 2003 and the same would result into unsettling the

settled position of the employees. Thus, the findings recorded by

the learned Single Judge warrant no interference of this Court.

We may refer here an observation given by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of

India, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 470:

"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part."

In the result, the special appeal filed by the appellant is

devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.

(8 of 8) [SAW-479/2022]

The stay application and all pending application(s), if

any, stand dismissed.

                                    (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J                                              (PRAKASH GUPTA),J

                                   N.K. Sharna/3









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)