Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1524 (DEL)

HEMLATA SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2007-07-30

HIMA KOHLI

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of teacher in terms of the advertisement dated 12th June, 1998. The explanation for not approaching this Court earlier in the year 1998 when cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner is that the issue with regard to appointment of candidates belonging to the categories of OBC/sc/st was pending before this court and attained finality only in May, 2005 when a Division Bench of this court rejected the review petition filed against its earlier order dated 15th december, 2000 passed in LPA 304/2000 as also rejected LPA No. 625/2002 in kunwar Pal Singh's case on 13th May, 2005. ( 2 ) THE respondents have filed replies and opposed the writ petition by taking a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on account of delay and latches in filing the same. The MCD in its affidavit has stated that the advertisement for the posts of Teacher was issued in June, 1998 by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and pursuant to the said advertisement the entire selection process except for the court cases pending in the court was concluded long before whereas the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner only in the month of September, 2005. e. after a gap of seven years from the date of the advertisement. Similarly, the respondent No. 2, DSSSB has reiterated the said stand taken by the MCD in its affidavit by saying that the recruitment process is already finalized/closed and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hit by delay and latches. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner rebuts the aforesaid arguments by saying that the petitioner cannot be ousted on the ground of delay and latches and pursuant to the issue attaining finality as referred to hereinabove, a learned single Judge of this Court had in fact allowed all the writ petitions pending in this Court by passing an order dated in 2005. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of this court in WP (C) No. 6154/99 entitled ?rejinder prasad Vs. DSSSB? to state that even in that case, a writ petition preferred after three years was entertained by the court. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of this court in WP (C) No. 6154/99 entitled ?rejinder prasad Vs. DSSSB? to state that even in that case, a writ petition preferred after three years was entertained by the court. He further submits that during the entire period from 1998 to 2005, the matter was kept in abeyance by the respondents and no appointments were made. ( 4 ) IT may be noted that the petitioner had admittedly filed the writ petition in September, 2005 and the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is of the year 2006. Neither any stay was sought, nor any protection was granted to the petitioner in this matter. ( 5 ) UNLIKE the case on which the counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance as referred to hereinabove, where it was noted by the court that representations were made by the petitioner from December 1997 onwards when the result was declared, till the filing of the present writ petition in the year 2001, in the present case, there is not a whisper in the writ petition with regard to any steps taken by the petitioner right from the year 1998 when the cause of action accrued in her favour, to the year 2005. Admittedly, no representations were ever made by the petitioner to the respondent. Thus to state now that the petitioner ought to be granted the benefit of the judgments rendered in the aforesaid cases, irrespective of whether she had sought her remedies in law or not, is not acceptable. ( 6 ) IN service jurisprudence, gross delay and laches are considered sufficient ground not to interfere in favour of a party who may otherwise be entitled to relief. It has been held in a number of cases by the Supreme Court as also by this court that stale claims should not be entertained by the courts and failure to make out any grounds to condone the delay in seeking remedy in law is sufficient to oust the petitioner. In this connection, reference may be made to the following judgments: (i) Rajlakshmiah Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 993 . (ii) J. N. Maltiar Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 1343 . (iii) C. B. S. E. VS. B. R. Uppal and Ors. , 129 (2006) DLT 660. (iv) Savitri Sahni Vs. Lt. In this connection, reference may be made to the following judgments: (i) Rajlakshmiah Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 993 . (ii) J. N. Maltiar Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 1343 . (iii) C. B. S. E. VS. B. R. Uppal and Ors. , 129 (2006) DLT 660. (iv) Savitri Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi and Ors. , 130 (2006) DLT 287. ( 7 ) IN the present case, the petitioner seems to have simply sat back and waited for the others to try their luck in court by filing writ petitions and when the said petitions bore a positive result, the petitioner jumped into the fray by filing the present writ petition. ( 8 ) IN the light of the fact that there is delay of about 7 years in filing the writ petition even if the case of the petitioner is favourable to her in law, in equity, it will not be appropriate to exercise the powers of judicial review in the present case. The prayer made in the writ petition is, therefore, declined. The writ petition is rejected.