Antony Dominic, J. 1. This original petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.636/14 who is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the OA on the grounds of delay and laches.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was included in the ranked list published by the PSC for the post of Pharmacist (Homoeo). The said ranked list which was published on 16.4.2002 was operated only in respect of vacancies which arose prior to 12.4.1999 when the Special Rules came into force. Claiming appointment from that ranked list, the petitioner had filed W.P(C).20111/06 along with one P.Jayachandran. That writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 12.2.2007. W.A.893/07 and OP(KAT).379/14 2 RP.857/07 filed by them were also dismissed on 10.8.2007 and 19.10.2007 respectively. It is thereafter that the OA in question was filed by the petitioner on 25.9.2014. In the said OA, he claimed appointment on the basis of Ext.P2 judgment of this Court in W.A.2204/09 and W.P(C).35654/09. These cases were filed by P.Jayachandran who was a petitioner along with the petitioner herein in the previous round of litigations. He initiated the said proceedings after the order dated 19.10.2007 was passed by this Court dismissing R.P.857/07 and after obtaining new materials showing that the case canvassed against him by the PSC regarding the existence of vacancies was factually incorrect. Finally, he succeeded in Ext.P2 judgment rendered on 20.3.2014 and it was on the strength of that judgment, the petitioner filed OA.636/14. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the OA mainly on the ground of delay and laches and observing that the claim for admission on the strength of a ranked list which expired long ago was a stale one.
OP(KAT).379/14 3
4. From the facts noticed above, it is obvious that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is a delay of at least 7 years in filing this original petition, if the same is counted from the date of dismissal of the review petition. In the pleadings, apart from certain vague averments, there was absolutely no satisfactory explanation regarding the long and inordinate delay. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal chose to dismiss the OA. We do not find any illegality in the view taken by the Tribunal.
Original petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.
/TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE