Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 653 (JK)

Manish Kumar Bharti v. State of J&K

2020-12-03

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2020
Judgment Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.—By medium of the instant petition, the petitioner has craved the indulgence of this Court in granting him the following relief(s): “It is therefore prayed that by issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to re-visit the seniority issue of the petitioner and to determine and fix, maintain the seniority of the petitioner either at the bottom of 30th Batch or at the top of the 31st Batch and further for issuance of appropriate writ thereby commanding the respondents to release all consequential benefits including promotion to the petitioner to the next higher post.” 2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, is that he, in the year 1997, appeared in the competitive examination held by the respondents for making selection against the posts of CPO (Assistant Commandant Post) and that, accordingly, on the basis of his merit, came to be selected in CPO-1996 (i.e. 30th Batch of DAGOs). However, for reasons best known to the respondents, the appointment letter/ order was delayed by the Department as they could not obtain the verification/ antecedent report from the concerned police authorities which resulted in delay for the petitioner to undergo requisite training with 30th Batch. Thereafter, it is stated that when the Police verification report came, the 30th & 31st Batches had already commenced their training and, as such, the petitioner was offered appointment letter with 32nd Batch, but due to his mother’s ill health condition, the petitioner claims to have sought extension of six months to undergo the requisite training, which was approved by the respondents. After expiry of six months, the training of 32nd Batch started and the petitioner was asked to undergo the requisite training with the next Batch, i.e., 33rd Batch. Upon completing the training course successfully, the petitioner claims to have made a serious of representations before the respondents, thereby requesting them to reckon and determine the seniority of the petitioner alongwith his original batchmates for which he was selected, i.e., 30th Batch, but these representations were rejected without assigning any cogent reason and against the mandate of law. Upon completing the training course successfully, the petitioner claims to have made a serious of representations before the respondents, thereby requesting them to reckon and determine the seniority of the petitioner alongwith his original batchmates for which he was selected, i.e., 30th Batch, but these representations were rejected without assigning any cogent reason and against the mandate of law. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court in the year 2017 seeking a direction upon the respondents for determining/fixing his seniority at the appropriate position commensurate to his appointment/ selection and status to be reckoned from the first date of his appointment along with his batchmates of 30th Batch. 3. Objections stand filed on behalf of the respondents, resisting and controverting the averments made by the petitioner in his petition. It is stated that Writ petition is barred by delay and latches and also by the law of estoppel. The inter-se-seniority of the petitioner had already been assigned correctly under the provisions of Rule-8(b)(ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, read with DOP&T OM No.350 15/2/93-Estt(D) dated 09-08-1995 and other relevant rules and orders. The Petitioner, Second-in-Command of 177 BN, CRPF was selected through CPO-1996 (30th Batch), but offer of appointment could not be issued due to non-receipt of verification report of Character and Antecedents from the State Authorities, being a prerequisite and mandatory requirement. On receipt of verification report, he was issued offer of appointment with direction to join for basic training alongwith 32nd Batch DAGOs (CPO-1998), which commenced from 25th of February, 2000. However, he failed to join the basic training with 32nd Batch DAGOs and requested for extension of joining time due to some personal problems. His request was considered and subsequently he was allowed to join basic training alongwith 33rd Batch DAGOs (CPO-1999) that commenced from 14th of October, 2000 subject to the condition that his seniority will be assigned as per letter dated 15th of March, 2000. Accordingly, the inter-se seniority of the petitioner was determined correctly above 33rd Batch in which he had undergone his training in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8(b) (ii) of CRPF Rules, 1955 read with DOP&T OM No. 35015/2/93(D) dated 9th of August, 1995. The petitioner was, accordingly, vide letter No. 0-11-5285/09-Pers (AC) dated 7th of September, 2009, also informed of the same. The petitioner was, accordingly, vide letter No. 0-11-5285/09-Pers (AC) dated 7th of September, 2009, also informed of the same. Aggrieved of the communication dated 7th of September, 2009, the petitioner filed WP No. NIL /2017 in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, but same was, thereafter, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his case before the concerned Departmental authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for re-fix his seniority after a lapse of considerable period of time, as such, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. The petitioner has also filed his Rejoinder in opposition to the objections so filed by the respondents. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter. 6. The first and foremost issue, as raised by the respondents, that requires to be considered is whether the claim of the petitioner in approaching this Court for seeking the relief qua re-fixing his seniority, etc., is hit by the principles of delay and latches. 7. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the Writ petition stating that the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The petitioner was issued appointment order in the year 2000 and seniority of the petitioner was, accordingly, determined above 33rd Batch in which he had undergone his training in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8(b) (ii) of CRPF Rules, 1955 read with DOP&T OM No. 35015/2/93(D) dated 9th of August, 1995, which position, vide letter No. 0-11-5285/09-Pers (AC) dated 7th of September, 2009, communicated to the petitioner as well. No objections were received from the petitioner against the aforesaid fixation of seniority. The petitioner, in case he was aggrieved, should have, in the ordinary course, questioned the fixation of his seniority at the relevant point of time which he did not choose to do and has, instead, filed this petition in the year 2017. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst Government servants created by the Writ petitions filed after several years, as in the case on hand. Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst Government servants created by the Writ petitions filed after several years, as in the case on hand. It is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the Court as early as possible, as otherwise, in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the Government servants, there would also be administrative complications and difficulties. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Writ petition is liable to be rejected on the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the Writ petition on the ground of laches. 8. Although security of service cannot be used as a shield against administrative action for lapse(s) of a public servant, by and large one of the essential requirements of contentment and efficiency to guarantee such security in all its varied aspects, it should, at least, be possible to ensure that matters like one’s position in the seniority list after having been settled for once should not be liable to be reopened after lapse of many years at the instance of a party who has, during the intervening period, chosen to keep quiet. Raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time. It also cannot be denied that the acceptance of the Writ petition would adversely affect the service conditions of the in-service employees by altering their seniority and putting them to disadvantageous position. 9. The undisputed facts appearing from the pleadings on record are alone sufficient to dismiss the Writ petition on the ground of latches because the petitioner agitated his grievance before this Court only in the year 2017, which was long after he had entered the department in 2000. During this entire period of more than seven years, the rights inter-se have crystalized which cannot be re-opened after the lapse of such a long period. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There thus, was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance on the part of the petitioner. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that this Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the merits of the case and that the Writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of latches alone. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed, alongwith all connected CMs. Interim direction(s), if any subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated.