Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22563 of 2018 Petitioner :- Naseem Khan Respondent :- Union Of India Through Min. Of Home Affairs, New Delhi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gyan Prakash
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for State-respondents and Shri Gyan Prakash who has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the respondents.
2. Shri Gyan Prakash has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of unexplained delay/laches.
3. He has submitted that recruitment of Constable General Duty in Central Arms Police Forces for the year 2011-12 in General Category was completed way back in year 2012. After declaration of result the respondents themselves had given time to all such persons who had any grievance to submit their objection by 31.03.2015. The newspaper notice to this effect was also published. However, the petitioner did not approach the respondents by filing any objection in time and now after three years, he has filed this writ petition only on the ground that in identical matters this Court has passed an order on 20th of August, 2018 for considering the controversy afresh in Writ - A No. 48354 of 2017: Ajit Singh and 54 others Vs. Union of India and 4 others and quashed the cancellation of candidature of similarly situated persons on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to them to explain to the authorities that they were not guilty of impersonation.
4. This Court has perused the content of the writ petition and it finds that the petitioner says that he had better marks than Dharmendra Kumar Mishra having roll No. 300702907 who also belongs to General Category and who had obtained 45 marks i.e. lesser marks than the petitioner has been declared medically fit and he was selected. Whereas the petitioner had obtained higher marks and yet he has been discriminated. On the other hand, the candidates who had obtained lower marks than the petitioner and belonged to Naxalite affected area Code - 33 were selected; whereas the petitioner's case was not considered although he also belongs to Naxalite affected area.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that in the judgment rendered on 20.08.2018 this Court had considered even those cases where the candidates had claimed that they had secured higher marks above the cut off marks and had directed that such persons shall approach the Commission within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and the Commission shall consider the case accordingly. The petitioner had not approached the Commission and even if he did, since he did not file the writ petition earlier, this Court should not entertain this writ petition as the cut off marks were notified on 28.11.2011.
6. It is apparent that there is delay in approaching this Court. Therefore, this Court does not wish to interfere at this belated stage in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Balu and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 2 SCC 479.
7. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches alone.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 LBY