Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/149/2023 on 4 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 149 OF 2023
04TH JULY, 2023
BETWEEN:
Santok Singh .....Petitioner.
And
Government of India & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Shreya Chaudhary and Ms.
Soniya Chawla, learned counsels.
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned
Standing Counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4 : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief
Standing Counsel, Mr. Amarendra
Pratap Singh, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Gajendra Tripathi, learned Brief
Holder.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition to seek a writ of quo- warranto directing respondent
nos.1 to 4 to remove respondent no.6- Mr. Jagdish Chandra
Kandpal from his services in the State of Uttarakhand, and to
return him back to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Other
consequential reliefs have been sought by the petitioner.
2. The premise on which this petition is founded is
that the petitioner participated in response to an
advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission, in the year 1998, inviting applications to fill-up
certain vacancies for the post of Naib Tehsildar.
3. Pertinently, the process for recruitment was
initiated prior to bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh and
the carving out of the State of Uttarakhand on 09.11.2000.
4. The petitioner claims that the appointment was
granted to respondent no.6 after the said bifurcation on
17.01.2001. According to the petitioner, since respondent
no.6 was appointed by the State of Uttar Pradesh after
bifurcation, he could only have served in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, where he was appointed, and his subsequent
allocation to the State of Uttarakhand was illegal.
5. As noticed hereinabove, the aforesaid
developments took place between the period 1998 to 2001.
This petition has been preferred in the year 2023, i.e. about
22 years later. It is, therefore, clearly barred by delay and
laches, and we are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the
same on that short ground.
6. Mr. Rawat, who appears on advance notice, has
also drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by the
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.312 of
2013, dated 25.02.2014, "Himalaya Singh Martoliya & others
vs. Union of India & others", in relation to the same issue.
7. In that petition, the present respondent no.6 was
impleaded as respondent no.9, and the Division Bench, even
on that occasion, found that the petition challenging the
allocation of respondent no.9 therein (respondent no.6 in this
petition)- filed after the lapse of eight years, as delayed, with
no explanation for the delay. The Division Bench, in that
petition, inter alia, observed as follows:-
"So far as the relief no. 1, is concerned, after the lapse
of period of eight years, no explanation has been given to
explain the latches and delay in writ petition by the petitioner
and in reply thereto the learned Senior Advocate has
submitted that argument of petitioner's counsel is
misconceived since, the selection of respondent no.9 was
made of in the year 1998, that was stayed by the Central
Government because of Reorganization of both the State and
guidelines have also been issued which were issued in
exercise of power 86 of the Reorganization Act, 2000. "All the
recruitments against vacancies in the interim i.e. till issue of
the final allocation orders may be kept in abeyance. Wherever
panels have been drawn but not published, they may be kept
in abeyance till reorganization of states is given effect to.
Wherever panels have been recently published, selected
candidates may be notified that their services in the existing
State of Bihar / Madhya Pradesh / Uttar Pradesh may not be
required beyond the 'Appointed Day' and they are liable to
serve in the Successor State of Jharkhand / Chhattisgarh /
Uttaranchal after Reorganization, as the case may be."
Respondent no.9 has option of service in both the States,
therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition on
the ground of delay and latches and the matter is sub judice
before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed at
threshold."
8. We are, therefore, of the view that there is
absolutely no merit in this petition. This petition is clearly a
gross abuse of the process of this Court, and the same is
accordingly dismissed with costs quantified to Rs.25,000/-, to
be deposited with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services
Authority within two weeks.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 04th July, 2023
NISHANT
