Special appeal filed against Single Judge dismissing a writ petition for appointment after a 26-year delay. Court held delay and laches disentitle equitable relief and disposed of appeal.
Appellant directed not to be appointed; appeal dismissed.
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.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1257 of 2011 Appellant :- Dharmendra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
" Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to give appointment on the post of Platoon Commander PAC with all benefits.
The petitioner is claiming the appointment in pursuance of the examination held in the year 1986. I am afraid that any such direction, claimed in the prayer, can be issued by this Court. The writ petition fails and is dismissed."
2
3
Supreme 455 and New Delhi Municipal Council (supra) . The aforesaid authorities have also been followed by this Court in Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2423 . This has been followed in Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors., 2009(1) SCC 297 . In S.S. Balu and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2009(2) SCC 479, Court held that it is well settled principle of law that delay defeats equity. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioners approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on account of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to other candidates who have got the benefit. In Yunus Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009(3) SCC 281 the Court referred to the observations of Sir Barnesdelay Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Company Vs. Prosper Armstrong Hurde etc. (1874) 5 PC 239 and held as under:
"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. . . . . . . Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy."
4
years of age and today he is aged about 57 years. Therefore, no relief can
be given.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 YK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be entertained when filed after an extraordinary delay of 26 years.
Whether delay and laches disentitle the appellant to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the appeal can be disposed of given the appellant's current age and the age of the service year.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and othersReferred¶14
New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and others J.T.2007(4) SC 253 · Who else cites this
M/S Lipton India Ltd. And others vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶14
M/S Lipton India Ltd. And others vs. Union of India and others, J.T. 1994(6) SC 71 · Who else cites this
M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶14
M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others 1995(5) SCC 628 · Who else cites this
K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. State of MysoreReferred¶14
K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 993 · Who else cites this
State of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and othersReferred¶14
State of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray and others AIR 1976 SC 2617 · Who else cites this
State of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik and othersReferred¶14
State of Orissa and others Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik and others 1976(3) SCC 579 · Who else cites this
Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶14
Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2007 SC 1330 · Who else cites this
Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶16
Chunvad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2423
Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors.Referred¶16
Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors., 2009(1) SCC 297 · Who else cites this
S.S. Balu and another Vs. State of Kerala and othersReferred¶16
S.S. Balu and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2009(2) SCC 479 · Who else cites this
Yunus Vs. State of Maharashtra and othersReferred¶16
Yunus Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009(3) SCC 281 · Who else cites this
Lindsay Petroleum Company Vs. Prosper Armstrong Hurde etc.Referred¶17
Lindsay Petroleum Company Vs. Prosper Armstrong Hurde etc. (1874) 5 PC 239
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dharmendra Singh
State of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
