Mr. Sumeet Anand, Mr. Pratyush Parimal and Ms. Priya Saxena, Advocates with v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Judgment

1. The Central Administrative Tribunal1 has, by order dated 2 December 2024, dismissed OA 1909/2023 as grossly barred by delay and latches.

Having heard Mr. Sumeet Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondent, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment. Signature Not Verified 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2025 14:54:10 W.P.(C) 759/2025

3. The petitioner applied for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi)2 in the Directorate of Education, pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2003. She participated in the selection which took place on 29 April 2003. Her documents were verified in

2005. The result of the selection tests held on 29 April 2003 was admittedly made known on 8 June 2004. Her name did not figure in the final select list. Nonetheless, she was asked to submit documents thereafter on 23 June 2004.

4. Thereafter, a second advertisement was issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board3 in 2007 for the same post. She again applied for the post. She was selected and joined as TGT (Hindi) in August 2008.

5. In the interregnum, on 22 March 2007, the petitioner was informed that, as her name was not in the select list, she could not be appointed. According to Mr. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason for the respondent’s name not figuring in the select list was never made known to her at that time. He submits that it was only subsequent to an application under the Right to Information Act, 20054 in 2007 that the petitioner was informed, in 2014, that she had not been selected pursuant to the selection on 29 April 2003 as she did not have sufficient marks in her Graduation.

6. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner, on not finding herself appointed, waited for 3 years till 2007 to make enquiries under 2 “TGT”, hereinafter 3 “the DSSSB”, hereinafter 4 “the RTI Act”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2025 14:54:10 W.P.(C) 759/2025 the RTI Act regarding the reason for her non-selection.

7. After 2014, the petitioner filed OA 1191/2015 before the Tribunal on 23 October 2015. The said OA came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 17 October 2019.

8. The petitioner apparently did not move any application for restoration of the OA. Instead, the petitioner chose to file a fresh OA 1909/2023, four years thereafter.

9. Though Mr. Anand seeks to submit that the petitioner was misguided and had not been properly informed, the record – and the impugned order – speak otherwise. It appears that the petitioner, for reasons best known to her, never chose to have OA 1191/2015 restored, though it was dismissed on 17 October 2019. She apparently came to know thereafter that candidates who had been appointed as TGT (Hindi) consequent to the selection test held on 29 April 2003 had been given the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme consequent to certain judicial orders. This provoked the petitioner to address a representation to the respondent three years thereafter on 28 December 2022, seeking the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. It was only thereafter that the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of OA 1909/2023, again raking up the same challenge which formed subject matter of OA 1191/2015, which had been dismissed for non- prosecution on 17 October 2019, i.e. her non- selection consequent to the selection test held on 29 April 2003. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2025 14:54:10 W.P.(C) 759/2025

10. The very maintainability of such an OA is highly debatable. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has correctly noted that the petitioner, at all points of time, acted with complete indolence, and her OA was grossly barred by delay and latches.

11. Law, it is trite, does not come to the aid of the indolent.

12. The Supreme Court has in its recent judgment in UOI v. C. Girija5 specifically noted that, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is required to keep in mind the aspect of delay and latches. The relevant paragraphs from the said decision may be noted thus:

16. This Court had occasion to consider the question of cause of action in reference to grievances pertaining to service matters. This Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining6 had occasion to consider the case where an employee was terminated and after decades, he filed a representation, which was decided. After decision of the representation, he filed an OA in the Tribunal, which was entertained and order was passed. In the above context, in para 9, following has been held: “9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and involve any the representation does not dispose of “decision” on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to “consider”. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to “consider”. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief Signature Not Verified 5 2019 SCC Online SC 187 6 (2008) 10 SCC 115 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2025 14:54:10 W.P.(C) 759/2025 claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.” This Court again in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar7 on 17. belated representation laid down following, which is extracted below: “15. When a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.”

18. Again, this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari8, had occasion to consider question of delay in challenging representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. In paras 19 and 23 following was laid down: the promotion. The Court further held “19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time. ***** Signature Not Verified