Special appeal against dismissal of a writ petition filed by candidates disputing a 2011 selection process for Sub-Inspector post. The High Court held that the appeal suffered from unexplained laches and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 977 of 2018
Appellant :- Hanuman Singh And 85 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Kumar Ojha,Abhai Raj Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 5th September, 2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ A-No.18727 of 2018.
By the order aforesaid, learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ being suffered from unexplained laches.
Suffice to mention that a process of selection was initiated for the purpose of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector by holding Rankers Examination, 2011. Result of the same was declared in the year 2011 and thereafter, certain persons questioned correctness of the process of selection by way of filing petitions for writ. The petitions so filed came to be disposed of in the year 2014 and the special appeals too were decided in the same year. The entire dispute came to rest on disposal of a Civil Appeal No.45 of 2016 by the Supreme Court on 30th January, 2017.
The appellant-petitioner claiming parity with the petitioners of earlier petitions preferred a petition for writ in the year 2018 that came to be dismissed by learned single Bench. Learned single Bench after going through the entire record held that the appellants-petitioners approached the writ Court after a lapse of about 7 years from the date of completion of the process of selection and as such they are not entitled to get any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In appeal, while questioning correctness of the order dated 5th September, 2018, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-petitioners is that some of the matters of similarly situated persons are yet pending before the Apex Court and, therefore, there is neither any delay nor any laches on the part of the appellant-petitioners.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
Admittedly, the process of selection was initiated in the year 2011 and result of that was declared in that year itself. The entire litigation relating to process of selection also came to an end in the year 2017. In this entire period, no efforts were made by the appellants-petitioners to agitate their cause. The instant petition for writ too has been filed after a lapse of more than one year from the date of disposal of the civil appeal by the Supreme Court. Certain other matters may be pending before the Supreme Court but that would not be a reason sufficient to ignore the delay in filing the petition for writ and laches on the part of the appellants-petitioners.
It is well settled that in the matters relating to process of selection, a person aggrieved must approach to the Court as expeditiously as possible. In such matters delay and laches plays a very vital role and that is sufficient to throw a petition at the threshold without examining merits.
In our considered opinion, learned single Bench rightly dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at the conclusion that the same suffers from unexplained laches.
An amendment application has also been filed by counsel for the appellants-petitioners but in view of the fact that we have examined merits of the case, no orders is required to be passed thereon.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.10.2018 Bhaskar
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)
Hanuman Singh And 85 Ors
State Of U.P.
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
