Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1200 (GAU)

Phanindra Das v. State of Assam

2019-11-06

M.R.PATHAK

body2019
ORDER : M.R. Pathak, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. It is stated that pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.02.2010 of the authorities of the Assam Police for recruitment of Armed Branch Constables in Assam Police Battalions against 3843 numbers of vacant posts, petitioner applied for the said post and appeared before the Selection Committee, but he did not find his name amongst the selected candidates. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that from reliable source he could come to know that the State respondents initially prepared the select list to the post of Constables as advertised but it was cancelled for the reasons best known to the authority and subsequently, a new select list was published after a lapse of five months or so, selecting candidates were not even found qualified in the physical efficiency test and were some candidates did not even appear in the interview. 4. It is also contended by the petitioner that though he had given up all hopes of getting any appointment from the said test and interview but he recently came to know that by a judgment and order dated 22.02.2019, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2725/2010 considered the case of such candidates, who participated in the aforesaid selection process but their names did not figure in the selection process and approached the Court against the non-inclusion of their names in the select list 5. Petitioner submitted as he is similarly placed to the petitioners of said WP(C) No. 2725/2010 and therefore, he is entitled for similar relief in terms of said order dated 22.2.2019, passed in WP(C) No. 2725/2010. 6. Petitioner's prayer herein for setting aside and quash the appointments made and for a direction for order of appointment to the petitioner and for a direction to the State respondents to adjust or appoint him in the newly created vacant post in Assam Police. 7. The petitioner has also submitted that the inordinate delay in approaching the Court should be condoned considering the fact that he is not highly educated person and acquainted with the intricacies of law, which needs to be condoned. 8. 7. The petitioner has also submitted that the inordinate delay in approaching the Court should be condoned considering the fact that he is not highly educated person and acquainted with the intricacies of law, which needs to be condoned. 8. Petitioner has clearly admitted the fact that he has approached this Court only after coming to know about the order dated 22.2.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 2725/2010 and waited since the year 2010 after select list pertaining to the advertisement dated 08.02.2010 was declared, where his name did not figure. 9. A Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Lal Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538 that relates to promotion have held that the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution .............Suffice to state that the appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake up when they had the impetus Virpal Chouhan (1995) 6 SCC 684 and Ajit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 715 ratios. 10. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 , pertaining to the advertisement made in the year 1986 for the posts of Homeopathic Compounder and Ward Boys and selection to such posts where appointments made pursuant to such selection which were later cancelled by orders dated 22.06.1987 against which the aggrieved candidates approached the Tribunal in the year 1987 itself and the Tribunal passed the judgment in favour of the aggrieved petitioners on 16.08.1991 holding the said order dated 22.06.1987 as illegal and void and quashed the same against which the State filed writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed on 27.08.1992 confirming the decision of the Tribunal, against which the State preferred Special Leave petition which was dismissed on 12.08.1994 and thereafter, said Arvind Kumar Srivastava in the year 1995 filed a writ petition for giving him appointment under strength of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 16.08.1991, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held as follows:- "22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim." 11. The petitioner has failed to give any valid reason of the lapse of time and there is no reasonable explanation for the delay in approaching the Court and in his negligence in pursuing his rights. Moreover, selected candidates have already been appointed as in the meanwhile, the rights of the third parties (selected and appointed candidates) have already accrued and if at this belated stage, the claim of the petitioner is allowed after such delay and negligence, it would affect the rights of the innocent third parties. 12. In view of the above, this writ petition being filed at a belated stage and the petitioner being a fence-sitter, is not entitled for his remedy and rights under the writ jurisdiction on account of his delay and laches in approaching the Court. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.