The respondent filed a writ petition on or about 22 February 2015, seeking the following relief:
"(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite parties to extend the benefit of judgment and order dated 19.08.2006 passed in writ petition no.4031 S/S of 2001 Pratap Narain Pandey Vs State of U.P. and others to the petitioner and also to permit him to join duty with the immediate effect as contained in Annexure no.1 to this writ petition."
In his writ petition, the respondent averred that an advertisement was issued in 1986 for the appointment of regular Collection Amins and after a due selection process, a select list of 186 candidates was prepared in which his name appeared at serial number 54. The case of the respondent was that it was incumbent upon the State to provide him appointment on the post of regular Collection Amin, but he was permitted to work only as a Seasonal Collection Amin since 5 June 1986. The respondent claimed that one Pratap Narain Pandey had filed a writ petition in 1990 (Writ Petition No.10539 (S/S) of 1990) and a writ petition in 2001 (Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001) which were allowed on 19 August 2006. Against that order, it was contended that a special leave petition was dismissed. On this basis, the respondent sought the benefit of the judgment in Pratap Narain Pandey's case. The learned Single Judge recorded the statement of the learned Standing Counsel that the case was covered by the judgment and order dated 19 August 2006 in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of finally with a direction to the State Government to grant to the respondent the benefit of the judgment and order dated 19 August 2006 in Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001 (Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh).
In the special appeal, which has been filed by the State Government, it has been submitted that the respondent upon being selected/engaged as a Seasonal Collection Amin had worked for twenty six days with effect from 5 June 1986 to 30 June 1986. The respondent moved the writ proceedings nearly twenty nine years after the date of his disengagement from the post of Seasonal Collection Amin seeking to claim the benefit of the select list and of the judgment delivered in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey. The submission of the State is that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches and ought to have been dismissed only on that ground. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court, inter alia, in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar Pathak1 to submit that even the selected candidates do not have a legal or vested right to appointment. Moreover, it was submitted that having regard to the fact that there was an unexplained delay of twenty nine years, the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition.
In the case of Pratap Narain Pandey, it was urged, the first writ petition (Writ Petition No.10539 (S/S) of 1990) was filed immediately after the cause of action had arisen in 1990 and this was connected with another writ petition (Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001). Hence, it was urged that merely because the writ petition which was filed by Pratap Narain Pandey had been allowed by the learned Single Judge on 19 August 2006, that would not be a ground for entertaining a writ petition after an unexplained delay of twenty nine years.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 8 August 2014 granted the benefit of the decision in Pratap Narain Pandey in a batch of special appeals, including Special Appeal No.311 of 2008 which arose from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 26 March 2008, dismissing a writ petition on the ground of laches and hence, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted.
We have examined the rival submissions and perused the record.
In our view, the case of Pratap Narain Pandey is clearly distinguishable having due regard to the fact that in that case the candidate, who was aggrieved, had pursued his legal remedies with reasonable dispatch. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Pratap Narain Pandey's case was delivered on 19 August 2006 in regard to two writ petitions. The first writ petition was filed by Pratap Narain Pandey as far back as in 1990 (Writ Petition No.10539 (S/S) of 1990). Apart from this writ petition, he had filed another writ petition in 2001 (Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001). Both the writ petitions had been clubbed together and were disposed of on 19 August 2006.
On the other hand, the respondent filed his writ petition on 22 February 2015, seeking the benefit of the judgment and order dated 19 August 2006 delivered in the writ petition filed by Pratap Narain Pandey. By that judgment, the petitioner in the earlier proceedings was directed to be given appointment on the post of regular Collection Amin and to be treated as a regular Collection Amin in service since 5 June 1986 for the purposes of seniority etc. except the salary for the period for which he had not worked. In the writ petition which has been filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge, there is absolutely no explanation much less a cogent explanation in regard to reasons which led the respondent to wait for nearly twenty nine years since 1986 before he filed a writ petition in 2015. The fact that other persons may have been granted the benefit of the judgment in Pratap Narain Pandey in the interregnum would not absolve the respondent of his own duty to explain why he chose to remain silent in the pursuit of his own rights. In a situation of this nature where a delay has been completely unexplained, a writ petition which was filed in 2015 seeking the benefit of parity with a case which had been decided in 2006 and where the petitioner in the earlier round had been vigilant enough in espousing his rights since 1990, could not have been entertained. There was evidently no parity with the case of Pratap Narain Pandey.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 8 August 2014 in a batch of special appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh (Special Appeal Defective No.110 of 2012 :State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Mohd. Usman Ansari) and connected cases). In that batch of cases, the learned Single Judge had granted the benefit of the decision in Pratap Narain Pandey in various writ petitions. In fact, the judgment of the Division Bench would indicate that several of those writ petitions had been filed as far back as in 1991 (Writ Petition No.4587 (S/S) of 1991, Writ Petition No.6472 (S/S) of 1991 and Writ Petition No.3764 (S/S) of 1991) which had been decided by the learned Single Judges on 28 October 2010, 12 May 2010 and 12 May 2010 respectively. Those petitioners had again been vigilant enough to pursue their rights and the writ petitions had remained pending before this Court. Undoubtedly, one of those writ petitions in the batch (Writ Petition No.1595 (S/S) of 2008) had been dismissed on 26 March 2008 by a learned Single Judge on the ground of laches and the special appeal which had been filed by the State (Special Appeal No.311 of 2008) was disposed of by holding that the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of laches was erroneous in view of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the case was identical to Pratap Narain Pandey which had attained finality and that the benefit had been granted to other similarly situated persons. The case proceeded entirely on a concession which was made and it would appear that no effort was made on the part of the State even to submit before the Division Bench that there was a factual difference between the case at hand and in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey. The judgment of the Division Bench does not lay down the principle that a writ petition which had been filed without any cogent explanation for a delay, as in the present case, must still be entertained merely on the ground of the decision in Pratap Narain Pandey. Hence, the judgment of the Division Bench will not assist the case of the respondent.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Basanti Prasad Vs Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board2. In that case, the husband of the appellant, who was an employee of the School Examination Board, was convicted of offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code on 7 February 1989 against which, a criminal appeal was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge. When the appeal was pending, his services were terminated in 1992. The husband of the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal before the Sessions Court and with the permission of the Court, the appellant continued to prosecute the criminal appeal. After he was acquitted by the Sessions Court, the appellant moved the Examination Board for an order that he would be deemed to have remained in service till the date of his retirement and that all the consequential retiral benefits of her late husband be paid.
Having due regard to the aforesaid factual background, the Supreme Court noted that if the delay is properly explained, it is open to the High Court to entertain the writ petition. The order of dismissal against the employee had been passed only on the ground of conviction in a criminal case. During the pendency of the appeal, the employee died and the appeal was prosecuted with the permission of the Sessions Court by his spouse. Upon acquittal by the Sessions Court, she had represented for the grant of retiral dues. In this background, it was held that there was no negligence or laches on the part of the appellant which would dis-entitle her for the grant of a writ.
In the present case, we find from the record that the writ petition which was filed by the respondent was without any explanation for the delay. The delay of nearly twenty nine years in filing the writ petition was completely unexplained. Merely because certain other individuals have been granted the benefit in the meantime, would not justify such a writ petition having been entertained in 2015. Hence, we hold that the respondent's writ petition ought to have been dismissed only on the ground of laches.
We, accordingly, allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 26 February 2015. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent (Service Single No.680 of 2015) shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.1.2016 RKK/-