Others v. Sate of U.P. &
Case Details
Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19022 of 2021 Petitioner :- Km. Aruna Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to decide the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner, by means of a reasoned speaking order, expeditiously within stipulated period in light of the order of this Hon'ble Court.
Decision
It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board on 17th February, 2009 for selection on the post of constable, petitioner, who belongs to Other Backward Class Category, applied and appeared in Physical Test, Written Examination and Medical test of which result was declared on 17th May, 2010. Since in the the written examination, the respondents mentioned 6 wrong questions, 63 candidates including the petitioner approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16423 of 2015 (Chiranji Lal & 62 Others Vs. Sate of U.P. & 3 Others) challenging the declaration of result dated 17th May, 2010 with a further prayer that the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Constables, may be considered after awarding 7.5 marks in place of 6 wrong answers and redetermining the merit list. The said writ petition has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27th March, 2015 with a direction upon the second respondent of that petition to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously. In the said order, the Writ Court has also directed the respondents to provide 7.5 marks on account of 6 wrong questions and again prepare the merit list and cut of marks may be amended for Other Backward Class Category candidate and after their appointment on the post of Constable, they may be sent on training. Accordingly, the petitioner made his representation before the authority concerned. Thereafter, several representations have been made by the petitioner but all goes in vain, hence the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order of the Writ Court dated 27th March, 2015, the petitioner made several representations before the authority concerned and the same has not been considered till date, therefore, this Court may direct the authority concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner. In reply, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the present writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. Advertisement is is of the year 2009 and the selections proceedings must have been completed by now, as more than 11 years have elapsed since then. Further the order passed by the Writ Court directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner is of 27th March, 2015 and the petitioner has approached this Court by means of present writ petition after nearly 7 years from the date of said order, for a direction upon the authority concerned to decide his representation so as to open a new case. The aforesaid delay in filing of the present writ petition has not been explained in any paragraph of the writ petition. The relief prayed for cannot be granted by this Court at this stage. He, therefore, submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the present writ petition. On the ground of delay It is settled law that the person, who is not vigilant and dormant about his right, cannot be allowed to agitate his right as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Smt. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299. The time-barred cases should not be entertained by Courts as the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The vested rights of the parties should not be disrupted at the instance of a person, who is a guilty of culpable negligence. The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932, wherein it has been said that "a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by law." In N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 133, the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under:- "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time- limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy." In the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 234, the Apex Court has held that the High Court cannot ignore the delay and laches in approaching the writ court and there must be satisfactory explanation by the petitioner as how he could not come to the Court well in time. Further in the the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 460, the Apex Court has held that the High Court should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay. Issuance of direction for deciding a representation Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy & Ors,. reported in JT 2006 (3) SC 189, wherein the practice of issuing directions to the authorities to decide the representations qua time barred claims have been deprecated. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:- "We may also note that sometimes the High Courts dispose of matter merely with a direction to the authority to 'consider' the matter without examining the issue raised even though the facts necessary to decide the correctness of the order are available. Neither pressure of work nor the complexity of the issue can be a reason for the court, to avoid deciding the issue which requires to be decided, and disposing of the matter with a direction to 'consider' the matter afresh. Be that as it may. There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of 'pliable' authorities have misused the direction 'to consider' issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to 'consider' and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to 'consider' the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to 'consider' the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order 'to consider' as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to 'consider', may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of court's direction to 'consider' the claim, or on account of the collusion/connivance between representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily wagers seeking regularization/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large scale misuse of the orders 'to consider'." the person making A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8642 of 2003, Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., decided on 30.7.2003 has held that without considering the merit of the case, the Court should not issue a direction to decide representation to any of the authorities for the reason that under the garb of getting the representation decided, the party may succeed in getting adjudicated a time barred claim, may be by an authority having no competence or by deciding the representation an order may be reviewed though remedy of review is not provided under the Statute. When this Court has proceeded to dismiss the present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the present writ petition and therefore, the same be dismissed as not pressed. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. Order Date :- 7.3.2022 Sushil/- (Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.11 11:30:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad