Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 736 (ALL)

Sanjay Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P.

2021-07-27

IRSHAD ALI

body2021
JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Alok Sharma, learned ACSC for respondent Nos. 1 to 6, Sri. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 692 and Sri. Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Santosh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 717 and 816. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 692 raised preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of writ petition on the ground of laches. He submitted that while issuing the tentative seniority list, objections were invited from the Constables appointed in pursuance to the selection made. The final seniority list was issued on 11.12.2017. The petitioners were not vigilant to know the order passed on their seniority list and they kept sleeping on the matter till filing of writ petition before this court. 3. His next submission is that the petitioners have not challenged the order passed on their objection to the seniority list dated 11.12.2017 and same was not challenged in the writ petition, therefore, his submission is that without challenging the order of rejection of the objection filed in regard to seniority list, the writ petition cannot be maintained. 4. On the point of rejection of objection to the seniority list as well as laches in challenging the final seniority list in the writ petition, he placed reliance upon following judgments: (a) Banda Development Authority vs. Moti Lal Agarwal, (2011) 5 SCC 394 (b) H.S. Vankani and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 301 (c) Rajesh Kumar Singh and Another vs. Rajeev Nain Upadhyay and Others, Special Appeal No. 819 of 2019 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court on paragraph 31 and 32 of the writ petition and on the said basis he submitted that at no point of time the final seniority list as well as the order of rejection of petitioner's objection was communicated to petitioners. 6. He further submitted that the petitioners came to know about the final seniority list when juniors to them were granted promotion from the post Sub-Inspector to Inspector and immediately thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before this Court, therefore, there is no delay or laches on the part of petitioners in filing the writ petition. 7. 6. He further submitted that the petitioners came to know about the final seniority list when juniors to them were granted promotion from the post Sub-Inspector to Inspector and immediately thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before this Court, therefore, there is no delay or laches on the part of petitioners in filing the writ petition. 7. His next submission is that the objection raised on behalf of the respondents is not acceptable in the eyes of law. The petitioners have approached to this court within time from the date of knowledge of final seniority list, thus, the writ petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of laches. 8. He also invited attention of this Court on paragraph-5 of counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, wherein the statement of fact made in the writ petition has not been specifically denied. 9. He further submitted that Writ Petition No. 14319 (S/S) of 2021 is lying pending consideration in regard to same seniority list in as much as in regard to same selection. 10. In reply to aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 692 submitted that he is counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that in the said writ petition, there is no challenge in regard to seniority of same selection. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No. 692 are being quoted below: (a) Banda Development Authority, Banda (Supra): “17. It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallized rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits.” (b) H.S. Vankani and Others (Supra): “38. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits.” (b) H.S. Vankani and Others (Supra): “38. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. Future promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and Government, driving the parties to acute penury. It is well known that salary they earn, may not match the litigation expenses and professional fees and may at times drive the parties to other sources of money making, including corruption. Public money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest. 39. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India and Another vs. S.K. Goel and Others, (2007) 14 SCC 641 , T.R. Kapoor vs. State of Haryana, (1989) 4 SCC 71 , Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604 . Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India and Another vs. S.K. Goel and Others, (2007) 14 SCC 641 , T.R. Kapoor vs. State of Haryana, (1989) 4 SCC 71 , Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604 . In view of the settled law the decisions cited by the appellants in G.P. Doval's case (supra), Prabhakar and Others case, G. Deendayalan, R.S. Ajara are not applicable to the facts of the case.” (c) Rajesh Kumar Singh and another (Supra): “24. The exercise of creation of the fresh seniority list in the year 2009, was premised on the finality of the seniority list of 2006. The said communication dated 29.12.2009, clearly records that the final seniority list of the Junior Engineers (Minor Irrigation), was duly published on 05.09.2006. In this manner, the communication of date, while inviting objections to the tentative seniority list of 2009, precluded the officials from challenging the seniority list of 2006 and restricted the scope of the objections only to the proposed seniority list of 2009. Five petitioners, namely, petitioner no. 2, petitioner no. 3, petitioner no. 6, petitioner no. 9, and petitioner no. 11, submitted their objections, in response to the communication dated 29.12.2009. 25. It is noteworthy that even at this stage, the said petitioners did not object to the seniority list of 2006. The said objections were rejected by orders supported with reasons. Thereafter, the final seniority list was drawn up on 05.03.2010. 33. We, therefore, find no illegality in the judgment of the High court in quashing the order dated 29th September, 1993 and upholding the seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch over the candidates of 1979-81 batch.” 13. On perusal of judgment in the case of Banda Development Authority (Supra), it is evident that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallized rights of the parties. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits. 14. If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits. 14. In the case in hand, a tentative seniority list was issued and objections were invited to the same from the Constables appointed in pursuance to the selection made. In pursuance thereof, the final seniority list was issued on 11.12.2017 and rights have settled between the parties but the petitioners did not challenge the same within time and now, after lapse of almost three years, the same has been challenged by way of present writ petition that too beyond prescribed limit to file civil suit. 15. In view of above, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 692 in the light of judgment in the case of Banda Development Authority (Supra) appears to have substance in the matter and the ratio of the judgment in the case of Banda Development Authority, Banda (Supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. In view of reasons assigned above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches.