Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 368 (MP)

Sandip Tripathi v. State of M. P.

2015-03-31

R.S.JHA

body2015
ORDER : R.S. JHA, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent-authorities to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 1998. 2. The prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is based on the contention that the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment by the respondent-authorities on the death of the petitioner's father who died while in harness as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the year 1998. It is contended that since then the petitioner is working on the said post. However, another person Shri Gyanendra Kumar Sharma was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Sidhi District. It is submitted that in such circumstances as the petitioner is also entitled to claim parity, he has filed the present petition for a direction to the authorities to grant him appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher from 1998. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed representation before the authorities, which has not yielded any result and, therefore, the respondents be directed to decide the same. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner was appointed and is working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III since 1998 whereas the petitioner has filed the present petition in the year 2015 without giving any reasonable acceptable explanation for the huge delay and laches of 17 years on his part. It is further clear that the petitioner has not made any contention or averment in the petition that the petitioner was entitled to be granted appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of the qualification held by him but was denied the same nor has the petitioner been able to establish any parity with the said Shri Gyanendra Kumar Sharma who is from a different district than the petitioner. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 , has held that petitions that are filed after considerable delay and latches espousing dead cases cannot be reopened by issuing directions by the High Court for consideration of the representation in the following terms:-- "14. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 , has held that petitions that are filed after considerable delay and latches espousing dead cases cannot be reopened by issuing directions by the High Court for consideration of the representation in the following terms:-- "14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects of such directions have been considered by this Court in C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining Indus. Est. and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 115 : (2008) 2 SCC(L&S) 961:-- '9. The Courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.' 15. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a Court's direction. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a Court's direction. Neither a Court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16. A Court or Tribunal, before directing 'consideration' of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation with reference to a 'live' issue or whether it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue. If it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue or dispute, the Court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the Court or Tribunal deciding to direct 'consideration' without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the Court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect." In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and as the direction as sought for by the petitioner cannot be issued as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.K. Sarkar (supra), I do not find any merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.