Rafik Biswas v. State of West Bengal — 1995 DIGILAW 470 (CAL)

JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Dutta, J.: By this Writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the 23 Writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as petitioners) have prayed the Court for issue of "a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to show cause as to why they should not be directed to give job to the petitioners in Farakka Super Thermal Power Project, Farakka, Murshidabad in accordance with the said respondents' own written assurance given from time to time to the petitioners and also for which, interviews of the petitioners were also taken from time to time", along with the other reliefs prayed for therein, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein. 2. It is contended by the petitioners that their cultivable lands, which they were cultivating, were acquired for different works of Farakk Super Thermal Power Project, which is a Project under National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). controlled and managed by the Ministry of Energy under the Government of India. The Additional District Magistrate (LR) and the Collector of Murshidabad had acquired their lands under the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948, rendering them (petitioners) landless. At the time of acquiring their lands, the Officers of Farakka Super Thermal Power Project (hereinafter referred to as Project), which is a project under the National Thermal Power Project (for short NTPC) had assured them (Petitioners) that they or any member of their individual Family would be given a job in the said Project. Since 1979, the Senior Personnel Officer of the said Super Thermal Power Project had given written assurance to the Petitioners that as their lands were acquired they or any member of their respective families would be given jobs, and as such a list of such candidates would be prepared. The petitioners had applied for jobs under the prescribed forms and were called for interviews on different dates from time to time for the posts of Majdoors and Attendants since 1979. But till the day of filing of the Writ application none of the Petitioners has got any job in the said Project. 3. It is contended by the petitioners that since 1979 the authorities concerned have been giving false assurances to the Petitioners of giving jobs to them. But till the day of filing of the Writ application none of the Petitioners has got any job in the said Project. 3. It is contended by the petitioners that since 1979 the authorities concerned have been giving false assurances to the Petitioners of giving jobs to them. They have also met the Officers of the said Project several times for giving them appointments, but to no avail. Their oral requests having failed, some of the petitioners had made written representation to the authority concerned in December, 1993 for taking immediate steps in the matter. The State Government also did not take any step in the matter, though informed by the petitioners on several occasions. Hence the instant application for the reliefs prayed for. 4. The Writ application is opposed by the contending Respondents no. 4 to 8 by filing Affidavit-in-Opposition mainly on the ground of delay in filing the Writ application by the petitioners as also on the ground that they had become unsuccessful during the interviews and were not recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee. The Writ application is accordingly liable to be rejected. 5. To the ground of delay first. On the Petitioners' own contention their lands, which they were cultivating, had been acquired by the competent authority for the Project in question in 1979. The Officers of the concerned Project further are stated to have assured the Petitioners at the time of acquiring their lands that they or any member of their individual family would be given a job in the said Project. The Petitioners further contended that the Senior Personnel Officer of the aforesaid Super Thermal Project had also given such assurance since 1979 that they or any of their respective family members would be given a job for which a list of such candidates would be prepared. The Annexure 'A' to the Writ application appears to be one such letter addressed to the Writ petitioner No. 18 Md. Aktarul lslam on behalf of the Personnel Officer of Farakka Super Thermal Power Project which seems to be dated 17-5-1983. There is no materials on record to indicate that any further assurance was given to any of the petitioners by the Officers of the aforesaid Project thereafter. Aktarul lslam on behalf of the Personnel Officer of Farakka Super Thermal Power Project which seems to be dated 17-5-1983. There is no materials on record to indicate that any further assurance was given to any of the petitioners by the Officers of the aforesaid Project thereafter. The Petitioners have contended in Paragraph-5 of the Writ application that they had been called for interviews on different dates from time to time since 1979 for the posts of Mazdoor and Attendants. The Annexure 'B' to the Writ application appears to be one such interview letter dated 19-5-1983 addressed to the aforesaid Writ petitioner No. 18 by the Personal Officer of the said Project asking the former to appear for interview on 24-5-1983. There is no material on record to indicate that any of the Petitioners had been interviewed thereafter. The materials on record, as they are, would, therefore, seem to suggest that the Petitioners had been interviewed since 1979 up to May, 1983. But the Writ petition appears to have been affirmed on 7-3-1994 and filed before the Court on 15-3-94, after about 11 years since the Writ Petitioners are stated to have been interviewed by the authorities concerned for appointment as Mazdoors and Attendants. 6. The Petitioners sought to contend in paragraphs 5 & 6 of their Writ application that they had been called for interviews on different dates from time to time since 1979 onwards. There is no whisper by them that the interviews had continued beyond 1983. There is neither any whisper by the Petitioners that any of them had been interviewed more than once. They further sought to contend that assurances were given to them from time to time in different years. But the Annexure 'A' to the Writ application appears to be the lone written correspondence in the matter, which seems to be dated 17-5-1983 calling upon the Petitioners to furnish the requisite particulars in terms thereof for preparation of a list for giving jobs to them or to any member of their respective families according to Corporation Rules, their eligibility and experience. There is nothing on record to indicate that any other assurance was given by the Respondent authorities thereafter. There is nothing on record to indicate that any other assurance was given by the Respondent authorities thereafter. In Paragraph-7 of the Writ application the Petitioners have contended that they have not got any job till the date of filing of the Writ application, though they appear to have been interviewed from 1979 to about 1983. According to the contending Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 the petitioners were unsuccessful during the interview, and were not recommended by the Selection Committee. The Petitioners sought to contend in their Affidavit-in-reply that they were not intimated that they had been unsuccessful in the interview and were not recommended by the Selection Committee. If that be so, it was open to the Petitioners to approach the Court for appropriate redress at the appropriate time instead of waiting for more than a decade in the matter. But no step appears to have been taken by the petitioners since their interview from 1979 till about 1983. The Annexure 'C' (collectively) to the Writ application should seem to indicate that representations were made by some of the Petitioners for the first time to the General Manager, NTPC, only on 8-12-1993 and 9-12-1993, after about a decade of their interviews around 1983. There is not the merest and faintest whisper in any of the aforesaid representations to suggest that any other representation was made by any of them to the authorities concerned prior to the sending of the aforesaid representations dated 8-12-93 and 9-12-93. The petitioners clearly, therefore, had been sleeping over the matter since their lands were acquired in 1979 and since their interviews from 1979 to around 1983 for long 10 years, a decade. The petitioners are seeking to agitate their claims which they had failed to pursued for several years. They were never vigilant and were content to be dormant. In view of the aforesaid inordinate delay, which is remains unexplained, the Writ application is liable to be rejected in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Rup Diamonds and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1989) 2 SCC 356 . 7. They were never vigilant and were content to be dormant. In view of the aforesaid inordinate delay, which is remains unexplained, the Writ application is liable to be rejected in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Rup Diamonds and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1989) 2 SCC 356 . 7. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh Mann vs. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another, AIR 1980 SC 1894 had held that delay of 11 years in filing the Writ application was an inordinate delay which could not be overlooked on the ground that the petitioner was making successive representations to the concerned department. It would seem worth bearing in mind that no case has even been made out by the petitioners herein that they were making successive representations to the authorities concerned. 8. The Supreme Court in C.C. Gupta and Others vs. N.K. Pandey and Others, AIR 1988 SC 268 has held that it would not be just and proper to give any relief to the petitioners on the ground of inordinate laches and delay in approaching the Court, in the facts and circumstances therein. 9. In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Others vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1993 SC 2276 the Supreme Court has further held that delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In the absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well. The Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 has further held as follows: "It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Art. 226. nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to exercise their extraordinary powers under Art. 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters." 10. In Ashok Kumar Mishra and another etc. In Ashok Kumar Mishra and another etc. vs. Collector, Raipur and others, AIR 1980 SC 112 the Supreme Court has observed that it is well settled that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue an appropriate Writ is discretionary and if the High Court finds that there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, it may reject the petition if it finds that the issue of Writ would led to public inconvenience and interference with rights of others. 11. As already indicated above, there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching this Court for the reliefs prayed for and there is no satisfactory explanation for such delay. The petitioners have not approached the Court expeditiously for the reliefs and stood by and had allowed things to happen and had eventually approached the Court after waiting for long 10 years to put forward stale claims, which are likely to unsettle settled matters and might as well lead to public inconvenience and interference with right of others. That being so, the Writ application, to my Judgement, in the facts and circumstances of the matter is liable to be outright rejected on the ground of delay in filing the same. The same should, accordingly be rejected. 12. While parting with the matter I would also like to note in passing that the Writ. petition could neither succeed on merits. As appearing from the Annexure 'A' to the writ Application, a list was to be prepared by the concerned authorities of the concerned project for offering jobs to the petitioners, being land oustees, according to Corporation Rules and depending upon their suitability and experience. Even though an assurance was given thereunder the same could not mean that the Respondent authorities were incompetent to screen the candidates. It is contended by the contending Respondents Nos. 4 to 8, with more than usual clarity and conviction, that the petitioners were unsuccessful at the interview and were not recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee. They could not be offered any job as such. The available official records produced before me by the contending Respondents during the hearing, as directed, would seem to bear out their aforesaid contention. They could not be offered any job as such. The available official records produced before me by the contending Respondents during the hearing, as directed, would seem to bear out their aforesaid contention. On careful examination and scrutiny of the official records produced before me, I found nothing wrong in the same, which appear to have been contemporaneously maintained in due course, containing the signatures/initials of the concerned Officers therein. There seems little reason to discard the same as such. The said Official records clearly show that the petitioners named therein had become unsuccessful during the interview and were not recommended by the selection Committee for appointment. As held by the Supreme Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke etc. vs. Dr. B. S. Mahajan etc, etc., AIR 1990 SCC 434 it is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted. Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The decision of the Selection Committee on the point could not be interfered with by the Court. That being so, the petitioners having been found to be unsuccessful during the interview and having not been recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment could not certainly claim to be appointed, the way prayed for under prayer (a) to the writ application. 13. Upon the premises above, the Writ application fails and be accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Application rejected.