Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1159 (PNJ)

Harvinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2004-10-12

J.S.NARANG, S.S.NIJJAR

body2004
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioner was interviewed for the post of Driver on May 12.1997. Since then, he has not been offered the appointment. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 17450 of 2003, which was disposed of by this court by passing the following order- "The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus that the petitioner may be appointed as a driver. In the writ petition, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had ever made a demand to the respondents in this regard. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the present petition is not maintainable unless the petitioner approaches the respondents and makes a demand for relief claimed by him in the present petition. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the respondents for the redress of the grievance, if so advised in accordance with law." 2. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that even at that stage, this Court had observed that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had ever made a demand to the respondents for being appointed as driver. However, the petitioner was permitted to make necessary representation, if so advised. The petitioner, thereafter served a legal notice dated January 21, 2004 which is attached to this writ petition as Annexure P6. The respondents have not given any reply to the aforesaid notice. Now, a prayer is made in the present writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of driver. The petitioner has also pleaded that CWP No. 6723 of 1998 in which the same relief is claimed is pending in this Court after admission. The aforesaid petition had been filed by some of the workers who had also appeared in the interview but were not appointed. 3. Having considered the entire matter, we are of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition as the same is highly belated and barred by laches. Pendency of CWP No. 6723 of 1998 would not be an explanation for condoning the delay and laches of the present petitioner. His claim has to be established independently of the petitioners in the earlier case. Pendency of CWP No. 6723 of 1998 would not be an explanation for condoning the delay and laches of the present petitioner. His claim has to be established independently of the petitioners in the earlier case. They had moved the Court within a reasonable time, The petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition. This view of our is supported by ratio of law laid down by Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of P.S.E.B. v. A.K. Sehgal, 1989(4) S.L.R. 437. In that case, the petitioner was seeking relief on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala and Anr. v. Ravinder Kumar Skarma and Ors., 1986(3) S.L.R. 778. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition granting relief not only to the petitioner but also in the cases of persons similarly situated in directing implementation of the judgment of the Supreme Court irrespective of the fact whether such employees had approached the court or not. L.P.A. No. 402 of 1998 filed by Punjab State Electricity Board was referred to the Full Bench. After considering the entire matter, the Full Bench concluded that the petitioner cannot be given any relief on inter alia the following reasons:- a) He cannot succeed on the ground that he was senior to his juniors who were promoted as Line Superintendents; b) He cannot succeed in his petition because it suffers from lack of particulars and vagueness having not stated when did he acquire eligibility for promotion, when did his juniors acquire eligibility for promotion when did the promotional post/posts fall vacant which he was deprived of and on what basis? c) He cannot succeed for having not impleaded the parties affected thereby, if he was to be given promotion from a back date and more particularly in the absence of Ramesh Kumar, the junior suggestedly promoted earlier to him; d) The claim of the writ petitioner is stale and an effort to unsettle settled matters and would be inequitious to disturb those who sit back and consider that there appointments and promotions effected a long time ago would not be upset after a lapse of a number of years; e) He cannot succeed since rights of other parties have come into existence and this Court cannot harm innocent parties since those rights have emerged by reason of delay on the part of the writ petitioners; f)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx g)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 4. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid conclusions are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner and a large number of other persons appeared for interviews between April 21, 1997 to April 28, 1997 in response to advertisement dated December 12, 1996. The petitioner is, however not in possession of interview letter and, therefore he has not been able to attach the same to the writ petition. The Corporation advertised 240 posts by advertisement dated April 09, 1997. On September 12, 1997, the respondent-Corporation advertised 240 more posts of Drivers. The petitioner passed the driving test on the basis of earlier interview. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have given appointments only to the applicants belonging to the Punjab Ex-servicemen Corporation. Therefore, 100% reservation has been made in favour of the Ex-servicemen. The petitioner and other persons who were duly qualified and had passed the driving test have not been considered for appointment. 5. The above narrated facts make it abundantly clear that any relief granted to the petitioner at this stage is liable to affect the rights of innocent third parties who are not before this Court. On this short ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Furthermore, the cause of action, if any arose to the petitioner in the year 1997. The present petition has been filed on September 13, 2004. Thus, it becomes abundantly clear that the claim of the petitioner is stale and cannot be considered. Faced with this situation, Mr. On this short ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Furthermore, the cause of action, if any arose to the petitioner in the year 1997. The present petition has been filed on September 13, 2004. Thus, it becomes abundantly clear that the claim of the petitioner is stale and cannot be considered. Faced with this situation, Mr. Dhandi, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that once this Court had passed an order in C.W.P. No. 17450 of 2003 permitting the petitioner to make a representation and a legal notice was sent pursuant to that order, delay and laches, if any, stood condoned. 7. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated November 06, 2003 makes it abundantly clear that the writ petition was held to be not maintainable. The petition was dismissed, it was thereafter observed that it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the respondents if so advised. These observations of the Court cannot lead to the conclusion that the delay has been condoned. Furthermore, the observations would not create a legal right in favour of the petitioner to pray for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. In our opinion, the present writ petition is clearly barred by laches. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 2271 has clearly held that an aggrieved party has to move the Court within a period of six months or at best within one year of the date when cause of action accrued. The Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 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 refuse to exercise their extra ordinary powers under Article 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." 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, we hold that the present writ petition is barred by laches and no relief can be granted to the petitioner.