Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13912 of 2015
Petitioner :- Narendra Singh And 22 Ors.
Respondent :- State Government Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Rao,H.N. Singh "Sanjay",O.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayank Mishra
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
1. Heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Rao, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State and perused the record.
2. Admittedly, joint seniority lists of directly recruited Junior Engineers and promoted Junior Engineers was finalized by the competent authority on 5.5.2009. Again another final seniority list of 39 Junior Engineers including the petitioners was published on 8.4.2013 by competent authority. Petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid seniority lists. Subsequently, vide order dated 4.3.2014 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) 56 Assistant Engineers were promoted by respondent no. 3. Thereafter, on 29.4.2013, 24 Assistant Engineers and on 5.2.2015, 24 Assistant Engineers were promoted. These three promotional orders are challenged by petitioner by means of this writ petition. Further, seniority lists dated 5.5.2009, 8.4.2013 and 13.12.2013 have also been challenged.
3. From a perusal of averments contained in the writ petition it is evident that three seniority lists were published between 5.5.2009 upto 8.4.2013 but petitioners did not challenge the same which indicates that they had no grievance and were satisfied with the aforesaid seniority lists.
4. This writ petition has been filed on 11.3.2015 i.e. after about six years after publication of first seniority list dated 5.5.2009. Now by means of this writ petition petitioners are seeking quashing of all three seniority lists (Annexure-6, 7 and 8 to the writ petition). The said seniority lists had not been challenged earlier within reasonable time and hence became final. Petitioners have no right to challenge the same after delay of about six years, being guilty of undue delay and laches.
5. Delay and laches constitute substantial reason for disentitling relief in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and others J.T.2007(4) SC 253, the Apex Court observed that after a long time the writ petition should not have been entertained even if the petitioners are similarly situated and discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approached the Court after a long time. It was held that delay and laches were relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In M/S Lipton India Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others, J.T. 1994(6) SC 71 and M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others 1995(5) SCC 628 it was held that though there was no period of limitation provided for filing a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within reasonable time. In K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 993, it was said that representation would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. Same view was reiterated in State of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and others AIR 1976 SC 2617 and State of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik and others 1976(3) SCC 579 and the said view has also been followed recently in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2007 SC 1330=2007(1) Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal Council (supra). The aforesaid authorities of the Apex Court has also been followed by this Court in Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2423. This has been followed in Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors., 2009(1) SCC 297. In S.S. Balu and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2009(2) SCC 479 the Apex Court held that it is well settled principle of law that delay defeats equity. It is now a tritle law that where the writ petitioners approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on account of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to other candidates who have got the benefit. In Yunus Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009(3) SCC 281 the Court referred to the observations of Sir Barnesdelay Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Company Vs. Prosper Armstrong Hurde etc. (1874) 5 PC 239 and held as under:
"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or 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. . . . . .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."
6. In view of the above, the relief sought by the petitioners can not be granted in this writ petition in exercise of our jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Masarrat