Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 386 (ORI)

BIRA KISHORE RAJ v. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

2013-09-13

A.K.RATH, M.M.DAS

body2013
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner in the aforementioned writ application has prayed, inter alia, to quash the advertisement dated 12.04.1996 issued by the Utkal University for the post of Lecturer in Physics and to consider him for the said post since he was the only scheduled caste candidate, who appeared at the interview. The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was published by the Registrar, Utkal University- opposite party No. 2 inviting applications for the posts of Professor, Reader, Lecturer and others for the Post Graduate Department of Physics. The last date of submission of the application was 31.5.1996. In the said advertisement, it was indicated that out of two posts of Lecturer in Physics, one is reserved for Scheduled Caste and the other for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was the only eligible scheduled caste candidate for the said post. While the matter stood thus, another advertisement was issued by the University on 10.9.1996 vide Annexure-2 modifying the earlier advertisement dated 24.4.1996, wherein it was indicated that one post is reserved for Scheduled Tribe and another for unreserved/general candidate by de-reserving the scheduled caste post. Thereafter, he appeared at the interview on 27.6.1997. It is further stated that he was the only scheduled caste candidate, who appeared at the interview and without considering his case for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physics, the University authority arbitrarily selected opposite party No. 5, who belongs to general category. Thereafter, he made successive representations. When all persuasions ended in a fiasco, he filed the present writ petition. 2. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the Registrar of Utkal University has entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. The case of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is that an advertisement was made by the University on 12.4.1996 for filling up two vacant teaching (Lecturer) posts in Physics, i.e. one for Scheduled Caste and one for Schedule Tribe. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued to the said advertisement on 3.9.1996 after recasting the roster point prevailing at that point of time and as per O.R.V. Act, one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe and another one unreserved. It is further stated that there was no vacancy in the post of Lecturer belonging to Scheduled Caste category. 3. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued to the said advertisement on 3.9.1996 after recasting the roster point prevailing at that point of time and as per O.R.V. Act, one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe and another one unreserved. It is further stated that there was no vacancy in the post of Lecturer belonging to Scheduled Caste category. 3. The opposite party No. 5-selectee has entered appearance and filed a comprehensive counter affidavit stating therein that she has a brilliant academic career and she has also completed Ph.D in 1990. Though she was selected for the post of Lecturer in physics by the Orissa State Public Service Commission securing the 1st position in the merit list, but she did not join in order to continue with her higher studies and research. Pursuant to the advertisement made by the Utkal University in the year 1996, she offered her candidature for the post of Lecturer in Physics and was selected. When she was working at Germany appointment order was issued in her favour on 30.6.1997. Thereafter she joined as a lecturer in Physics in Post Graduate Department of Physics. She became a senior lecturer on 3.10.2001. Subsequently, she was selected to the post of Reader and Professor pursuant to the advertisements. At present, she is continuing as Professor in the P.G. Department of Physics, Utkal University. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Mr. N.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner argues with vehemence that it was clearly indicated in the earlier advertisement vide Annexure-1, that one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste and another for Scheduled Tribe. But then, to deprive the petitioner, another advertisement was issued modifying the earlier one by keeping one post for general candidate and another for scheduled tribe candidate. 6. He further submits that from the inception of the University, no Scheduled Caste candidate has been appointed due to the apathy of the University. Mr. Mishra taking us to the contentions of the writ petition submits that the petitioner has a brilliant academic career and at present he is continuing as a Lecturer in Physics. Though the petitioner has made successive representations, but the University-authority maintains a stony like silence. 7. After hearing Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves dismissal on the following grounds. 8. The advertisement was made on 12.4.1996 vide Annexure-1. Though the petitioner has made successive representations, but the University-authority maintains a stony like silence. 7. After hearing Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves dismissal on the following grounds. 8. The advertisement was made on 12.4.1996 vide Annexure-1. Pursuant to the interview, the opposite party No. 5 was appointed as Lecturer in Physics on 30.6.1997. In course of time, she was promoted to the post of Reader and Professor. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 16.1.2004, i.e. after lapse of more than six years. 9. This Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner, and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai and Others the Hon'ble apex Court held that "the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Article 226. It appears to us, however, that the maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in the Civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which the delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. This Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a Civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than the period it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable." 10. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general but then this extraordinary writ jurisdiction has been conferred to the law courts under Article 226 of the Constitution on a very sound equitable principle. Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, "delay defeats equity" has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Furthermore, by efflux of time opposite party No. 5-selectee has been promoted to the post of Professor. 11. The submission of Mr. Hence, the equitable doctrine, namely, "delay defeats equity" has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Furthermore, by efflux of time opposite party No. 5-selectee has been promoted to the post of Professor. 11. The submission of Mr. Mishra that from the inception of the University, no scheduled caste candidate has been appointed in the Physics Department is of no avail, however, we observe that in future recruitment the opposite party-University shall follow the O.R.V. Act. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed