Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10714 of 2018 Petitioner :- Yamuna Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Prajapati,Rama Kant Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to conduct Review Physical Test for measurement of his height and chest, he seeks to assail the finding of the medical board dated 22.08.2016 which was held pursuant to the advertisement no.P.R.P.B-1 (82)/2015 dated 29.12.2015, for recruitment to the post of Constable Police (Male)/Constable P.A.C. It is noteworthy that the petitioner had challenged the finding of the medical board dated 22.08.2016 and approached this Court in writ petition No.51498 of 2016 with the assertion that no decision has been taken on the objection taken by him to allow him to appear before the Review Medical Board. The said writ petition was disposed of with the judgement and order dated 26.10.2016 whereby this Court has directed the Chairman, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow to consider the grievance of the petitioner and allow him to appear before the Review Medical Board and further to intimate the date of his appearance.
It appears that the said judgement was challenged in Special Appeal (D) No.178 of 2017 (State of U.P. & others Vs. Yamuna Maurya) by the respondent authority which was dismissed on 10.03.2017. The judgement of special appeal has not been brought on record. However, from the own averments of the petitioner in paragraph no.'12' of the writ petition, this much is clear that the special appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed about a year back i.e. on 10.3.2017. In paragraph no.13 of the writ petition, the petitioner submits that he was continuously approaching the authority for compliance of the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by this Court but no Review Medical Board was held to examine the petitioner.
It is thus contended that the petitioner is entitled for consideration in view of the directions of this Court as affirmed by the Special Appellate Court.
To deal with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to note that the petitioner did not approach this Court raising any grievance with regard to non compliance of the direction issued on 26.10.2016 for about a period of more than one year, when the special appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed.
The assertion made by the petitioner with regard to repeated representations being made by him for a period of one year are not acceptable. Even otherwise, the petitioner did not file any contempt petition before this Court raising grievances of non compliance of the judgement and order dated 26.10.2016. The assertion in paragraph no.13 of the writ petition are vague.
Reference may be made to the judgement of Apex Court in the case of S.S. Balu & anothe Vs. State of Kerala & others reported in 2009 (2) SCC 479 and NDMC v. Pan Singh reported in 2007 (9) SCC 278 wherein it has been held that "delay defeats equity". The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be exercised in favour of those who approached the Court after a long time. Delay and latches are relevant facts for exercise of equitable jurisdiction.
For the above noted fact, this Court does not find any justification to issue any mandamus after a period of more than one year.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Himanshu