Dismissed

Brajpal Singh v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boardand 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022WRIA/20668/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the result of a Head Master selection. The Court held that the petitioner failed to file the petition within a reasonable time after allegedly being denied an interview, invoking the doctrine of laches and lack of due diligence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of laches and lack of due diligence.

Brajpal Singh Vs U.P. Secondary Education… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20668 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Brajpal Singh

¶4

Respondent :- U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boardand 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Chand

¶6

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel and, Shri Krishna Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the respondent Board.

¶8

Present petition has been filed to challenge the result declared by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board vide order dated 13.11.2022 pursuant to the Advertisement no.3 of 2013 for the appointment on the post of Head Master, amongst others, at Subhash Higher Secondary School, Satwara, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the institution).

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, the petitioner is the senior most Assistant Teacher eligible to be appointed as Head Master of the institution. For that purpose, he was entitled to be called for interview by the Board under Rule 11(2)(b) with the proviso to Rule 12(6) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules 1998. Accordingly, the petitioner was also issued a call letter for interview dated 21.03.2022. Though interview was scheduled for the same day, the petitioner further states, in paragraph 11 and 12 of the writ petition that he presented himself for interview before the Board. However, he was not interviewed. Thereafter, the pleadings are silent as to the action, if at all, that was taken by the petitioner with respect to denial of opportunity of interview.

¶10

Then, relying on paragraph 14 of the writ petition, it has been submitted, the result has been suddenly declared by the Board on 13.11.2022 without granting any opportunity of interview to the petitioner. Thus, fundamental rights of the petitioner are claimed to have been violated.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent Board would submit, the petitioner himself did not appear at the interview. Only general pleadings have been made to set up a non-existing claim.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, insofar as it is admitted to the petitioner that he received a call letter for interview and he could present himself for the same on the date fixed, the petitioner cannot be heard to say he was deprived of knowledge of the date of interview or that he was prevented from appearing before the interview panel owing to absence of necessary information.

¶13

As to what transpired, on 21.3.2022, it is not the case of the petitioner that no interview took place on that date, rather, in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been pleaded, the petitioner (alone) was deprived opportunity of interview. Assuming the said fact to be correct, eight months have passed since then. No communication or claim appears to have been made by the petitioner either to the Board or to any other authority. No cause was brought to this Court claiming infringement of any right to the petitioner.

¶14

On the own showing of the petitioner, once he was deprived of opportunity of interview in the month of March, he lost his chance of being selected under the advertisement in question. The fact that the result of the selection process has been declared on 13.11.2022, therefore, cannot be relied by the petitioner as the start point of cause of action. The delay from

¶15

21.3.2022 till 13.11.2022 is unexplained and fatal.

¶16

Once the petitioner has allowed laches to intervene, he cannot be permitted to resurrect his grievance at this late stage to claim an equitable relief. Whatever cause of action existed, the petitioner should have prosecuted it with due diligence.

¶17

At any rate, too much time has passed. Final result has been declared. Rights of other persons who had participated in the interview have been altered inasmuch as they have now been given chance of appointment.

¶18

For all reasons noted above, no good ground is made to offer interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this belated stage.

¶19

Writ petition is hit by laches. It is accordingly dismissed .

¶20

Order Date :- 12.12.2022 Prakhar

¶21

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.13 11:45:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brajpal Singh v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boardand 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajpal Singh v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boardand 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and 14 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Anju and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Priyanka Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sonal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Namwar Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rama Shanker Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others