Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2504 (ALL)

Nitin Gurjar v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-11-02

SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, YOGESH CHANDRA GUPTA

body2011
Yogesh Chandra Gupta, J.;— The present Special Appeal has been filed by the petitioner/appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47692 of 2011, filed by the petitioner/appellant. 2. It appears that an Advertisement was issued in the year 2005 for appointment of Shiksha Mitra. 3. The petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 5 and other candidates submitted their applications for appointment as Shiksha Mitra. 4. A Merit List dated 05.12.2005 was prepared by the Selection Committee (Respondent No. 4), wherein the percentage of marks of the petitioner/appellant was shown as 62.8, while the percentage of marks of the Respondent No. 5 was shown as 61.7. 5. An Affidavit sworn on 12.12.2005, purporting to be sworn by the petitioner/appellant, was filed, wherein it was stated that the petitioner/appellant was withdrawing his application for appointment as Shiksha Mitra. 6. In the circumstances, by the Order dated 04.03.2006, the Respondent No. 5 was given appointment as Shiksha Mitra. 7. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner/appellant for the first time on 29.07.2010 made an application alleging that the aforesaid affidavit dated 12.12.2005 did not bear the signature of the petitioner/appellant, and as such, the selection of the Respondent No. 5 as Shiksha Mitra be set-aside, and the petitioner be selected as Shiksha Mitra. 8. As nothing was done on the said application, the petitioner/appellant approached this Court by filing the aforesaid Writ Petition in August, 2011. 9. The learned Single Judge by the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2011 has dismissed the aforesaid Writ Petition on the ground that no satisfactory explanation for the enormous delay in filing the Writ Petition had been given by the petitioner/appellant. 10. The petitioner/appellant has thereupon filed the present Appeal. 11. We have heard Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and perused the record. 12. It is submitted by Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that the Respondent No. 5 got the appointment by playing fraud, and when the fraud was discovered by the petitioner/appellant, he made an application before the Appropriate Authority on 29.07.2010. Therefore, the submission proceeds, there was satisfactory explanation for the delay in questioning the appointment of the Respondent No. 5. 13. We have considered the submission made by Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. 14. Therefore, the submission proceeds, there was satisfactory explanation for the delay in questioning the appointment of the Respondent No. 5. 13. We have considered the submission made by Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. 14. It is noteworthy that the Merit List was published on 05.12.2005. The petitioner/appellant being an applicant must have come to know about the contents of the Merit List. The appointment was given to the Respondent No. 5 on 04.03.2006 but no action was taken by the petitioner/appellant for impugning the said appointment. There is no explanation in the Writ Petition as to how after four years, the petitioner/appellant suddenly came to know about the alleged fraud. 15. It is further noteworthy that even after giving the said application on 29.07.2010, the petitioner/appellant waited for about a year before approaching this Court. 16. In view of the above, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of laches. 17. The Appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. _____________