Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2189 (RAJ)

Sunil Kumar Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-03

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2022
JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Challenge in this Special appeal is led to the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was given appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk (for short 'LDC') vide order dated 14.08.2003 under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'). Counsel submits that after getting appointment in the year 2003, the appellant submitted representations on regular basis to the Department for redressal of his grievance. Counsel submits that even after rejection of the representations, several other representations were submitted by the appellant but this fact has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Counsel submits that the representation submitted by the appellant was rejected by the respondents on 26.02.2003 by observing that the appellant obtained the requisite degree of B.Ed. from Kumaun University in the year 1997, while the National Council for Teachers Education (for short 'NCTE') has given recognition to the aforesaid degree in the year 1998-99. Counsel submits that the appellant was having qualification of B.Sc. & B.Ed., hence, he was eligible to get appointment on the post of Teacher but without considering his qualification, appointment was given to him on the post of LDC. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. Counsel submits that looking to the facts and circumstances and also looking to the qualifications of the appellant, he is entitled to get appointment on the post of Teacher with all consequential benefits. 3. Heard. 4. Perused the record and considered the arguments. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant was given appointment on the post of LDC on 14.08.2003. It appears that the appellant was not satisfied with the said appointment and he submitted a representation before the authorities for granting him appointment on the post of Teacher on the basis of the qualification of B.Sc. & B.Ed. The representation submitted by the appellant was rejected by the authorities on 26.02.2003. It appears that the appellant was not satisfied with the said appointment and he submitted a representation before the authorities for granting him appointment on the post of Teacher on the basis of the qualification of B.Sc. & B.Ed. The representation submitted by the appellant was rejected by the authorities on 26.02.2003. After rejection of the said representation, the appellant kept silence for about 18 years and after an inordinate delay of 18 years, he filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge for which no reasonable explanation was submitted by him. 6. There is no substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant that even after rejection of the representation in the year 2003, he submitted several representations in these 18 years. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5 Supreme Court Cases 798 in para No. 10 held as under:- 10. Mere repeated filing of representations could not be sufficient explanation for delay in approaching the Court for grant of relief, was considered in Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society v. Kasbekar, by Chagla C.J. observing as follows: (SCC Online Bom : AIR p. 203, para 2). "2.... Now, we have had occasion to point out that the only delay which this Court will excuse in presenting a petition is the delay which is caused by the Petitioner pursuing a legal remedy which is given to him. In this particular case the Petitioner did not pursue a legal remedy. The remedy he pursued was extra-legal or extra-judicial. Once the final decision of government is given, a representation is merely an appeal for mercy or indulgence, but it is not pursuing a remedy which the law gave to the petitioner...." 8. Clearly, the writ petition was barred by delay and laches. The petitioner approached this Court after a delay of almost 18 years. There was no satisfactory explanation for laches and the delay in filing the writ petition on the part of the writ petitioner. Further third party rights have been entrenched. The law has long set its face against indolent litigants who approach this Court after a long delay. 9. The courts have consistently observed that delay and laches on part of the litigant will disentitle him to any relief. Further third party rights have been entrenched. The law has long set its face against indolent litigants who approach this Court after a long delay. 9. The courts have consistently observed that delay and laches on part of the litigant will disentitle him to any relief. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law with clarity and observed it with consistency. 10. The line of authorities on this point are consistent and long. The discussion will benefit from the authorities in point. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others reported at 2005 (3) SCC 91 held thus:- "There is no doubt that delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot disturb the third party interest created on account of delay. Even otherwise also why Court should come to rescue of person who is not vigilant of his rights." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service reported at AIR 1969 SC 329 held thus:- "Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy." 13. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy." 13. A similar sentiment was echoed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Dass v. Union of India reported at 2007 (9) SCC 274 , as under:- "The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction." 14. The delay would entrench independent third party rights, which cannot be dislodged. The deposit of subsequent events obscures the original claim and alters the cause itself. The refusal to permit agitation of stale claims is based on the principle of acquiescence. In certain situations, the party by its failure to raise the claim in time waives its right to assert it after long delay. 15. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Ram Gopal, Civil Appeal No. 852 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36253 of 2016), decided on 30.01.2020, has held in para 16 as under:- "Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced." 16. In Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 , it was held thus:- "16. 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." 17. If the writ petition filed by the appellant would have been entertained by the learned Single Judge at the belated stage of 18 years, then it would certainly disturb the seniority and promotions of the other persons appointed in the Department in the year 2003 and the same would result into unsettling the settled position of the employees. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge warrant no interference of this Court. 18. We may refer here an observation given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 470 : "191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part." 19. In the result, the special appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. 20. The stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand dismissed.