R. C. Sharma v. Registrar — 1990 DIGILAW 428 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. 1. BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- (a) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature 6f a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Registrar to produce the order whereby the select list prepared in the year 1978 was altered and after perusal thereof quash the said order by a writ of Certiorari, (b) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to restore the select list (Annexure 1' to the petition) prepared and issued in the year 1978, (c) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to place the name of the petitioner No. 1 at Serial No. 23 and that of the petitioner No. 2 at serial No. 25 in the seniority and select list, (d) issue a suitable writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and to, (e) award the costs of the petition to the petitioners. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details a selection list in the year 1978 was prepared wherein the petitioners figure at serial Nos. 23 and 25. A copy of the select list and original seniority has been attached with the writ petition as annexure 1'. According to the petitioners sometime in the year 1982 the select list prepared in the year 1978 was changed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and the petitioners were placed at serial Nos. 57 and 59. It has been stated that the persons who were issued appointments after the appointments of the petitioners have been made senior to the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 made a representation to the opposite party No. 1 as is evident from annexure 2' dated 29-4-1982. Through the annexure 3' dated 15-7-1982 the petitioner has been informed that his representation had been considered and rejected. It appears that on 17-7-1982, the petitioner No. 1 made another representation. Thereafter on 17-8-1984 again the petitioner No. 1 made a representation which has been attached as annexure 5' to the writ petition. On 25-1-1989 the petitioner No. I again sent a reminder which is annexure 6' attached with the writ petition. It appears that on 17-7-1982, the petitioner No. 1 made another representation. Thereafter on 17-8-1984 again the petitioner No. 1 made a representation which has been attached as annexure 5' to the writ petition. On 25-1-1989 the petitioner No. I again sent a reminder which is annexure 6' attached with the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition on 7-7-1989 and have prayed for the reliefs mentioned above. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged in the present case Therefore, we are deciding the claim of the petitioners finally at the stage of admission. 3. In our opinion, there are three obstacles in the way of the petitioner for getting the reliefs prayed for. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the earlier list of 1978 was modified by the order of the Court dated 21-8-1980 as the provisions of Rule 12 (4) of Rules of 1976 were not followed. Vide paragraph No. 18 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioners have replied the contents of paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit. Though in paragraph 18 of the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioners have characterised the order dated 21-8-1980 as illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. But the petitioners have failed to amend the writ petition and they have not prayed for quashing the order dated 21-8-1980. In our opinion, if the order dated 21-8-1980, is not quashed, the petitioners cannot get the reliefs claimed above. The petitioners appear to have accepted the existence of the order dated 21-8-1980 by which the earlier select list of 1978 was modified, yet they have not' prayed for quashing that order. When the existence of the order dated 21-8-1980 is accepted a relevant question arises/Whether the petitioners have approached this Court within the reasonable time. There is no explanation on behalf of the petitioners as to why the order dated 21-8-1980 was not challenged within the reasonable time. More so, even by this date, the petitioners have not amended the writ petition and have not prayed for quashing the order dated 21-8-1980, therefore, the present petition is defective and the petitioners cannot get the reliefs claimed so long as the order dated 21-8-1980 subsists. 4. More so, even by this date, the petitioners have not amended the writ petition and have not prayed for quashing the order dated 21-8-1980, therefore, the present petition is defective and the petitioners cannot get the reliefs claimed so long as the order dated 21-8-1980 subsists. 4. A perusal of annexure 5' indicates that a large number of persons have been placed senior to the petitioners and they have not been impleaded in the persent writ petition, therefore, we think granting of the claimed reliefs to the petitioners would adversely affect the persons who have placed senior to the petitioners in the modified list as back as the year 1980. Its would not be sound exercise of dis creation in entertaining the writ petition of the petitioners at present as necessary persons are not before this Court. Looking from this angle we find that this writ petition is defective and the petitioners cannot get the reliefs claimed behind back of the persons whose interests have crept in during the long period. In the facts and the circumstances of this case, we are not satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were diligently and bona fide pursuing their remedy through the representations, therefore, the delay and latches on their part should not be taken note of and the petitioners should be granted the relief claimed. In our opinion, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches and delay Our attention has been drawn to the ruling reported in AIR lv84 SC 1527 G. P. Doval v. Chief Secretary Government of U. P. and it has been contended that after 12 years their Lordships of the Supreme Court granted reliefs to the petitioners, therefore, the delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in the present case should not stand in the way of the petitioners getting the reliefs claimed. The facts and the circumstances involved in the reported ruling are quite different. In the reported ruling the respondents had not finalised the seniority list for a period of more then 12 years, therefore, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had granted reliefs to the petitioners. The facts and the circumstances involved in the reported ruling are quite different. In the reported ruling the respondents had not finalised the seniority list for a period of more then 12 years, therefore, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had granted reliefs to the petitioners. Whereas in the present case the select list was modified in the year 1980 and the order of the year 1980 has not been properly challenged even as yet and no relief has been claimed for quashing that order, therefore, we think that the petitioners are guilty of latches and they cannot derive any benefit out of the ruling referred to on their behalf. It would be necessary to mention the relevant decision of their Lordships in AIR 1970 SC 472, Ravindra Nath Bosh v. Union of India as well as the decision reported in the same volume at p. 769 Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports we think that the petitioners in the present case are not entitled to the reliefs claimed on the ground of latches on their part. 5. Rule 12 (4) of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) RULEs 1976 provides as below :- (4) "The merit list shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination. The list shall hold good for three years or until next selection which ever is earlier." 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy us on merits that according to the marks obtained in the written examination the petitioners would stand at serial Nos. 23 and 25 as indicated in Annexure 1' of the select list of the year 1978. In view of the aforesaid provisions if the petitioners do not stand at serial Nos. 23 and 25 according to the marks obtained in the written examination, we do not think it would be sound exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioners in the present petition which they are guilty of latches and delay as well as they have not impleaded persons affected by the modified list of the year 1980 and they have failed to challenge the order dated 21-8-1980, even at present. In our opinion, the writ petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal. In our opinion, the writ petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal. It is note worthy that a Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 1608 of 1987 Sheil Kumar Verma v. State of U. P., has indicated that no employee has a legal or statutory right to present a succession of representations on a matter which has already been dealt with and disposed of in the light of a representation initially made. In the present case when the petitioner No. 1 was not entitled to file successive representations, he cannot be permitted to explain the delay by filing successive representations contained in Annexures 4 to 6 attached with the writ petition. In our opinion, the laches and delay in filing the present writ petition on the part of the petitioners disentitle them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. AIR 1970 SC 364 Naresh Chandra Saha v; Union Terrotory of Tripura, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated vide paragraph 3 as below- "............In any event the judicial Commissioner was justified in refusing to entertain any contention as to the validity of the order of reversion made nearly seven years before the date on which the petition was filed " In the present case on their own showing the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution after lapse of 7 years. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant reliefs to the petitioners on the ground of delay and latches. 8. In AIR 1976 SC 2617 State of Orissa v. Sri Pyarimohan Samantary their Lordships of the Supreme Court vide paragraph 6 of their judgment have indicated as below ;- "It would thus appear that there is justification for the argument of the Solicitor General that even though a cause of action arose to the petitioner as far back as 1962, on the rejection of his representation on November 9, 1962, he allowed some 11 years to go by before filing the writ petition. There is no satisfactory explanation of the inordinate delay for, as has been held by this Court in Ravindra Nath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCR. 697 = AIR 1970 SC 470 the making of repeated representations after the rejection of one representation, could not be held to be satisfactory explanation of the delay. The . There is no satisfactory explanation of the inordinate delay for, as has been held by this Court in Ravindra Nath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCR. 697 = AIR 1970 SC 470 the making of repeated representations after the rejection of one representation, could not be held to be satisfactory explanation of the delay. The . fact therefore, remains that the petitioners allowed some 11 years to go by before making a petition for the redress of his grievances. In the mean time a number of other appointment's were also made to the Indian Administrative Service by promotion from the State Civil Service, some of the officers received promotions to higher posts in that service and may even have retired.......................... The High Court therefore erred in rejecting the argument that the writ petition should be dismissed because of the inordinate and unexplained delay even though it was 'streneously' urged for its consideration on behalf of the Government of India." In view of the above observations, we are not inclined to grant reliefs claimed by the petitioners after a lapse of 7 years or 10 years from the date when the cause of action arose to the petitioner. 9. We have already indicated above that the petitioners have not impleaded persons who were put senior to them in the modified list of 1980. Therefore, the writ petition is defective and the petitioners cannot get the relies claimed in the present writ petition. It would not be out of place to mention here that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in 1987 (Supp.) SCC 15, Ranga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, have indicated thus in the following words :- "We are of the view that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal ought not to have determined the question of seniority without the appellants in both the appeals being before the Tribunal since the determination of this question would directly affect the interest of the appellants. We, would; therefore, allow the appeals, set aside the order made by the Tribunal on September 3, 1984 and the subsequent direction given by the High Court for Its implementation..................... We, would; therefore, allow the appeals, set aside the order made by the Tribunal on September 3, 1984 and the subsequent direction given by the High Court for Its implementation..................... According to the aforesaid observations we think that it would not be sound exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners by granting reliefs prayed for when they have failed to implead the affected persons in the present writ petition. 10. In view of the above discussions it is not necessary to deal with other contentions on behalf of the parties in this writ petition regarding rules 13, 30, 34 and 45 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules 1976. For the foregoing discussions, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.