Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2085 (RAJ)

Om Prakash Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2015-12-15

AJIT SINGH, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Single Bench dated 18.07.2014 whereby the writ petition, preferred by the appellant for quashing the orders dated 09.07.2013 & 18.09.2013 rejecting his representation for consideration of his candidature to the post of Teacher Grade-III, was dismissed. 2. The appellant had applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III in response to advertisement issued by the respondents through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 2004-2005. He was permitted to appear in the competitive examination which was held on 12.09.2004. The result of this examination was declared on 06.01.2005 wherein the appellant was successful. The appellant had appeared for the B.Ed. Examination from Jiwaji University, Gwalior (M.P) in the Session 2004-05. The respondents issued him letter dated 03.04.2006 asking him to submit a marksheet of the B.Ed. Examination by 15.04.2006. The appellant had submitted a copy of the marksheet of B.Ed. However, the appellant was informed, vide letter dated 21.04.2006, that as the result of his B.Ed. Examination was not declared by 05.01.2005, his candidature had been rejected. The appellant preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17263/2012 wherein the Single Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.10.2012, disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the appellant. The representation of the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2013. The appellant is stated to have received another letter dated 18.09.2013 wherein he was informed that as he did not possess the requisite qualification in the year 2005-06 & 200607, therefore, he could not be entitled to the same relief as given to the other candidates. These orders were challenged before the Single Bench. 3. We are of the considered view that the writ petition preferred by the appellant was highly belated and has rightly been dismissed by the Single Bench on account of delay and laches. 4. Although the appellant is seeking appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III which was advertised in the year 2004-2005, the writ petition was preferred by the appellant only in the year 2014. The only explanation for the delay in preferring the petition, which has been put forth by the appellant, is that the candidature of similarly situated persons had been accepted in terms of the directions of the Court. Thereafter he had also challenged the rejection of his candidature. The only explanation for the delay in preferring the petition, which has been put forth by the appellant, is that the candidature of similarly situated persons had been accepted in terms of the directions of the Court. Thereafter he had also challenged the rejection of his candidature. His representation in terms of the direction of the Court had been rejected and he subsequently filed the writ petition. 5. This explanation for the delay in approaching the court cannot be accepted as it is settled law that the court does not help the slumberer and the lethargic. Those who are not vigilant about their rights and fail to raise their grievance or assail the order at appropriate time are not entitled to any relief which would be barred by delay and laches. The legal maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt, which means that equity aids only the vigilant and not the ones who sleep over their rights would be fully applicable to the appellant. Although there is no prescribed period of limitation for approaching this court by preferring writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India yet those agitating stale claims or attempting to unsettle the settled position deserve to be ousted at the very threshold. The Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu [ (2014) 4 SCC 108 ] has held that laches in invoking the equitable and extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be lightly brushed aside unless the explanation offered deserves acceptability. Delay itself reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant-a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. It has been further held that the Court is to scrutinize whether the delay is to be ignored without any justification. Remaining innocuously oblivious to delay does not foster the cause of justice, on the contrary it brings in injustice. It was further directed that the Court is not expected to indulge such indolent persons-who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. 6. Remaining innocuously oblivious to delay does not foster the cause of justice, on the contrary it brings in injustice. It was further directed that the Court is not expected to indulge such indolent persons-who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. 6. The mere fact that the representation of the appellant was decided in terms of the directions of the court and he approached the court thereafter cannot be regarded as sufficient explanation for the enormous delay in approaching the court. The fact remains that the cause of action arose to the appellant in the year 2006 and he has challenged the action of the respondents after about 8 years. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Mann vs. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Anr. [ AIR 1980 SC 1894 ] that filing of successive representations cannot justify the delay in approaching the court. 7. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.