The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 16933 of 2024 Sarat Kumar Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. Nirmal Ranjan Routray, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Ors. …. Opposite Party Mr. Biplab Mohanty, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 29.07.2024 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. Heard Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 24.06.2024, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 398/2018 (Annexure-17). Further, the petitioner seeks a directive for Opposite Parties No. 1 to 5 to declare Opposite Party No. 6 as a failed candidate in the selection for promotion to the post of Technician Grade-III against the 25% LDC Quota, as per the letter dated 07.12.2004, and to remove his name from the seniority list. Page 1 of 2 3.
Legal Reasoning
The background facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Group-D employee on 15.05.1997, and Respondent No. 5 on 15.06.1997. On 07.12.2004, Opposite Party No. 4 announced a competitive examination for Skilled Artisan Grade-III posts, listing both the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 5 as eligible candidates. The results published on 29.03.2005 placing Opposite Party No. 6 and the petitioner at positions 8 and 15, respectively. Both were subsequently promoted to Filter Operator. Later promotions advanced them to Technician Grades-II and I. The petitioner discovered that Opposite Party No. 6 did not achieve the required 60% marks in the 24.03.2005 exam, yet was promoted and placed higher in seniority. Representations made by the petitioner on 30.01.2017 and subsequent dates highlighted these issues but were rejected or ignored due to alleged delays. Despite repeated grievances, including a joint application and RTI requests, the authorities failed to address the core issues. On 12.07.2018, another promotion list again placed Opposite Party No. 6 above more qualified candidates, including the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 398/2018 before the C.A.T., Cuttack Bench, challenging the fraudulent promotions. The application was dismissed due to delay, prompting this writ petition seeking judicial intervention. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his arguments challenging the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) on grounds of delay. Firstly, the counsel argued that the Learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the M.A. without considering the relevant case law from the Hon’ble Apex Court, specifically the judgments in Ajit Kumar Bhuyan and Others v. Debajit Das and Others (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 630 Page 2 of 9 and Union of India and Another v. Narendra Singh (2008). These judgments, which were relied upon by the petitioner, emphasize the importance of examining the merits of a case despite procedural delays. The counsel contended that the Tribunal’s reliance on other decisions, not cited by the parties, was inappropriate and led to an unsustainable
Legal Reasoning
order dated 24.06.2024, which should be quashed. The learned counsel highlighted that the Opposite Party No. 6 had secured only 55.90% marks, below the qualifying threshold of 60%, as per the information obtained under the RTI Act. In contrast, the petitioner had secured 61.85% marks, indicating a clear case of merit-based illegality during the selection process for promotion to the post of Skilled Artisan Grade-III. The counsel argued that the Tribunal failed to properly consider this evidence and the relevant legal precedents in condoning the delay under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Tribunal’s focus on the lapse of time failed to address the substantive illegality of promoting a less meritorious candidate, thereby regularizing the illegal promotion of Opposite Party No. 6. This oversight warrants the quashing of the Tribunal’s order. 5. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party states that it is pertinent to highlight that the petitioner’s challenge to the promotion and seniority issues was belated. The promotion orders in question date back to 31.03.2005, and the petitioner’s first representation was made only on 30.01.2017, nearly 12 years after the initial promotion. The subsequent application filed on 04.10.2017 and the challenge to the seniority were significantly delayed. He further submits that the issue of seniority was addressed adequately. The petitioner’s seniority was corrected in 2016 as per the findings of the seniority correction exercise. The response dated 09.10.2017 clearly stated that the seniority Page 3 of 9 of Shri Dip Kumar Samal was rectified and circulated correctly. The error in seniority was acknowledged and rectified, demonstrating the Department’s commitment to maintaining accurate records. The learned counsel further submits that even if there were discrepancies, the petitioner has not demonstrated how these have caused actual harm to his career or seniority position. The records and responses provided show that the correction of seniority was handled transparently and according to procedural norms. The allegations of unfair treatment or wrongful promotion of Respondent No. 6 do not hold when viewed against the backdrop of the department’s corrective measures and the petitioner’s delay in challenging the promotions. The petitioner’s challenge is both time-barred and lacks substantive evidence to overturn the Tribunal’s order. The promotion process and seniority adjustments were conducted in compliance with the relevant norms, and the delay in filing the application justifies the dismissal of the petitioner’s claims as the challenge lacks merit. Whether there was an inordinate delay by the Petitioner in filing the writ petition? 6. The promotions and seniority list issues that the petitioner seeks to challenge date back to 2005. The petitioner first raised his objections in 2017 and filed the original application in 2018, approximately 12 years after the promotions were granted. This significant lapse of time, without a satisfactory explanation, constitutes an unreasonable delay. 7. Upon careful review of the petition and the underlying facts, it is evident that the petitioner’s application suffers from significant delay and laches, warranting its dismissal. The petitioner’s first prayer seeks to quash the letter dated 09.10.2017, which was a response to his Page 4 of 9 appeal. Notably, the petitioner did not challenge the initial rejection of his representation on 22.05.2017, indicating a lack of timely action. Furthermore, the petitioner’s request to declare Respondent No. 6 ineligible for promotion based on the letter dated 07.12.2004 is inconsistent with his subsequent plea to adjust the seniority list of Tech. Gr.-I, given that Tech. Gr.-III is the feeder cadre for Tech. Gr.-II and Tech. Gr.-I. 8. The gradation lists for these positions were published regularly, yet the petitioner did not raise any objections until 09.10.2017, almost twelve years after the initial promotion order of 31.05.2005. This significant delay in challenging the promotion and seniority of Respondent No. 6 undermines the credibility of the petitioner’s claims and demonstrates a lack of due diligence. The petitioner’s justification that the illegality and irregularity in the promotions came to light only through an RTI reply in 2017 is insufficient to overcome the extended period of inaction. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Kumar Kaul vs. Union of India, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 610 has held as follows- 23. It is necessary to keep in mind that a claim for seniority is to be put forth within a reasonable period of time. In this context, we may refer to the decision of this Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. wherein a two-Judge Bench has held thus: (SCC p. 154, para 2) “2. … It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and Page 5 of 9 allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.” 24. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan this Court had held thus that : (SCC p. 325, para 6) “6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, the opposite party. Even where causes prejudice fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Controller of Imports and Export. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.” to 26. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is manifest that a litigant who invokes the jurisdiction of a Court for claiming seniority, it is obligatory on his part to come to the Court at the earliest or at least within a reasonable span of time. The belated approach is impermissible as in the meantime interest of third parties gets ripened and further interference after enormous delay is likely to usher in a state of anarchy. 27. The acts done during the interregnum are to be kept in mind and should not be lightly brushed aside. It becomes an obligation to take into consideration the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a matter of great significance that at one point of time equity that existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance and paves the path of extinction with the passage of time. 10. It is a well-established principle that individuals cannot remain passive for an extended period and later seek to challenge concluded matters. The doctrine of delay and laches is a crucial aspect of judicial discretion, ensuring that claims are raised promptly to avoid prejudice to other parties and to uphold the integrity of legal processes. Page 6 of 9 Whether the order of learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack bench, dated 24.06.2024 is illegal or improper on account of dismissing the M.A. on ground of delay without taking into account the grounds of the Petitioner? 11. This Court finds the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack bench, dated 24.06.2024 with no infirmity or illegality. The petitioner cited the judgments in Ajit Kumar Bhuyan and Others vs. Debajit Das and Others (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 630 and Union of India and Another vs. Narendra Singh (2008) 2 SCC 750, arguing that these cases were not adequately considered by the Tribunal. However, both cases reiterate the importance of timely action and the consequences of unreasonable delay. In Ajit Kumar Bhuyan and Others vs. Debajit Das and Others reported in (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 630, the appeal was considered because a clear case of fraud was made out and established. The instant case does not involve allegations of fraud but rather concerns the petitioner’s delayed challenge to promotions and seniority lists and unsubstantiated proof of illegality in the challenged result of promotion. The distinction between fraud and mere delay is crucial, as fraud can toll the limitation period, whereas delay without fraud does not. In Union of India and Another vs. Narendra Singh reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750, the Supreme Court, held that mistakes in promotion could be corrected following due process, emphasizing that errors by the department should be rectified even if it causes hardship to employees, however, it considered the facts sympathetically due to the respondent being on the verge of retirement, holding the post of Senior Accountant for seventeen years, and reverted him to his substantive Page 7 of 9 post only for pensionary benefits. The facts in Narendra Singh (supra) are markedly different and do not provide a basis to overlook the significant delay in the present case. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner’s delay in challenging the 2005 promotions and seniority list is substantial, and no compelling reason has been provided to justify this delay. The Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the M.A. on the ground of delay is consistent with the principles established by the cited judgments. The principle that “law helps those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights” aptly applies in this case. Therefore, the order dated 24.06.2024 is legally sound and not improper. 13. Furthermore, the petitioner also claims that he obtained information about the respondent securing 55.90% marks through RTI. The said RTI reply indicates that the request was with regard to the status of the appeal dated 04.10.2017 to the General Manager and furnishing note sheets from the dealing assistant to the CPO. The reply dated 09.01.2018 noted that the petitioner’s representation was under consideration and that the seniority correction was based on irregularities identified during the selection process. However, it was also mentioned that the panel formed in 2005 was unavailable, and the promotion order confirmed Shri Samal’s seniority above the petitioner, with no evidence showing Shri Samal’s unsuitability in any selection/test. Additionally, the “08 pages” of handwritten note sheets supplied with the RTI reply are not found legible due to improper attestation. It is to be noted that in the first application for fixation of seniority filed by the petitioner on 30.01.2017, he has mentioned the said marks when he had no scope of knowing the same before the RTI Page 8 of 9 reply which was only received on 09.01.2018. The petitioner could have obtained the information during the OAT proceedings, rendering the forced evidence unnecessary if his case was valid and lawful. The petitioner failed to demonstrate how he obtained the exact marks of the respondent or himself. Moreover, the established seniority and promotion positions have likely resulted in settled expectations and administrative stability, which should not be disturbed after such a long period. In conclusion, the substantial delay in filing the petition and the absence of a compelling explanation for this delay necessitate the dismissal of the writ petition based on the doctrine of laches. The petitioner failed to act within a reasonable time, and such delay has likely prejudiced the opposite party and impacted the administration of justice 14. Given these circumstances, the petitioner’s application is fundamentally flawed due to inordinate delay and the absence of a compelling justification for such delay, this petition is liable to be dismissed to prevent the revival of stale claims and to maintain the stability of established legal and administrative decisions. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the petition and dismisses it on the grounds of delay and laches. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) (S.K. Sahoo) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 30-Jul-2024 19:48:23 A.K.Pradhan/Bijay Page 9 of 9