The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed a writ petition for lack of diligence. The petitioner sought appointment to a Data Entry Operator post offered in 2011 but filed the petition in 2018. The court held the eight-year delay was inordinate and the explanation was insufficient, ruling the matter under laches.
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.
8-WP 470-2019.DOC
Amrut
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.470 OF 2019
PAWAN PRABHUDESAI.
… Petitioner
Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR. …Respondents
Mr. C. Padgaonkar , Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM: M. S. SONAK & SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ DATED: 22nd July 2021
P.C.
1. Heard Mr. Padgaonkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents.
2. The Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the Respondents to issue him an appointment order to the post of Data Entry Operator in pursuance of an offer of appointment dated 09.12.2011.
Page 1 of 3 22nd July 2021
8-WP 470-2019.DOC
3. Though, the offer of appointment was issued on 09.12.2011, this petition has been instituted only on 22.04.2018 i.e. after a delay of almost eight years.
4. The only explanation for this delay, if at all it can be regarded as the explanation is to be found in paragraph 23 of the petition which reads as follows:-
“ That after tendering his acceptance to the said post, the Petitioner was regularly visiting the Office of the Respondent No.2 and bonafidely waiting in the fond expectation that justice would be done to him and that he would not be forced to approach the Court of law, as there was nothing wrong at all, in so far as his selection was concerned. The Petitioner also hails from pitiable backgrounds, and did not have the means for approaching the Court of law against the Government.”
5. Mr. Shirodkar also points out that the post to which the offer was made did not exist and consequently, no appointments were made to this post.
6. According to us, the delay is inordinate and the explanation is not sufficient to explain such an inordinate delay. Ultimately, this is a matter of public employment and the least that was expected of the Petitioner was some diligence. The Petitioner has not bothered to make even a single representation. In any case, the delay is inordinate, and having
Page 2 of 3
22nd July 2021
8-WP 470-2019.DOC
regard to the aforesaid explanation, we do not feel that the same has been sufficiently accounted for.
7. Therefore, on the ground of laches, we dismiss this petition.
SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J
M. S. SONAK, J.
TARI AMRUT NAGESH
Digitally signed by TARI AMRUT NAGESH Date: 2021.07.23 12:29:08 +05'30'
Page 3 of 3
22nd July 2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for mandamus seeking appointment order should be dismissed due to inordinate delay.
Whether the petitioner's explanation for an eight-year delay in filing the petition is sufficient to overcome laches.
Whether the non-existence of the post justifies the petitioner's delay in approaching the court.
Pawan Prabhusai
State of Goa
M. S. SONAK
M. S. JAWALKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court