Dismissed

Anjum Begam Abdul Khadir v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC29 Apr 2024WP/4435/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment as a Shikshan Sevak filed 15 years after the interview. The court held that the petitioner slept over her claim, displaying inordinate delay and laches, disentitling her to relief regardless of alleged merit.

What did the court decide?

Request for Writ of Mandamus to order appointment was not inclined to be considered.

Anjum Begam Abdul Khadir Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:9539-DB

¶2

WP-4435-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4435 OF 2024

¶5

Anjum Begam Abdul Khadir

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

...

¶11

Mr. S. E. Sarode h/f Mr. C. V. Thombre, Advocate for
the Petitioner

¶12

Ms. Neha Kamble, AGP, for the Respondents – State

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM:RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
R. M. JOSHI, JJ
DATE:APRIL 29, 2024

¶15

ORDER (PER R. M. JOSHI, J)

¶16

1.Petitioner seeks direction against Respondent

¶17

No. 4 to appoint her as “Shikshan Sevak” pursuant to

¶18

her interview conducted for the said post on
15.12.2008.

¶19

2.Petitioner claims to have possessed HSC, D.Ed
qualification. She had applied for the post of

¶20

“Shikshan Shevak” and was issued call letter for
interview on 15.12.2008. She attended the interview on
that day and was placed in the waiting list. It is

¶21

further case of the Petitioner that in spite of being

¶22

Page 1 of 6

¶23

WP-4435-2024.odt

¶24

kept on waiting list, no order of appointment is issued
to her till 2022 and the candidates who had secured
less marks than the Petitioner were appointed.
Petitioner, therefore, submitted representations dated
05.09.2022 and 13.08.2023. She claims that Education
Officer (Primary) had issued a communication dated
11.08.2023 intimating that appropriate action would be
taken in the matter. However, since no action is taken
thereafter, present Petition is filed.

¶25

3.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits

¶26

that the documents placed on record clearly indicate
that the Petitioner was called for interview on
15.12.2008 and in spite of the same, she was not issued
with a letter of appointment. It is submitted that the
candidates who had secured less marks than the
Petitioner had already been appointed on the post of
Shikshan Sevak and as such, the Writ Petition deserves
to be allowed.

¶27

4.Learned AGP opposed the said submissions by
contending that the Petition deserves to be dismissed
on the ground of delay and laches. To support said

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

WP-4435-2024.odt

¶30

submissions, she placed reliance on judgments of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surjeet Singh Sahani

¶31

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2022) 15 SCC
536& Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power
Corporation Ltd and Others Vs. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC
228. It is also submitted that the Petitioner does not
get any right to claim the appointment merely for the
reason that she was called for interview. It is
submitted that there is no material on record to
indicate that the person having secured less marks were
appointed by denying the appointment to the Petitioner.

¶32

5.There cannot be dispute with regard to the
position of law that no right of appointment is created

¶33

in favour of a candidate on the basis of call for
interview. Petitioner was called for interview for the
post of “Shikshan Sevak” by letter dated 02.12.2008 and
that she was interviewed on 15.12.2008. For about 15
years, thereafter Petitioner did not take any steps for
securing the appointment. No communication was made nor
there is any material on record which indicates that
the Petitioner was pursuing her claim before the
Authorities, who refused to consider the same. Record

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

WP-4435-2024.odt

¶36

indicates that after 15.12.2008 it is only for the
first time on 05.09.2022 a communication was addressed
to the Authority. Petitioner does not explain the
reason for not approaching to the Authorities for such
long period of time. In view of settled law as it
reflects from the judgments cited supra, that
inordinate delay and laches on the part of the
Petitioner disentitles her for seeking any relief.
Apart from this, a mere representation would not extend
period of limitation. Even though for filing a Writ
Petition there no period of limitation is prescribed,
it is expected that a aggrieved person would approach
the Court expeditiously and within a reasonable time.
In the instant case, Petitioner has slept over her
purported claim for inordinately long period without
showing any cause/reason or justification for not
pursuing her cause. We, therefore, are not inclined to
consider the request of the Petitioner for issuing Writ
of Mandamus to the Respondent/Authorities for issuance
of order of appointment to her.

¶37

6.Before parting, we would like to highlight
recent trend noticed by this Court that the right to

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

WP-4435-2024.odt

¶40

pursue a cause of action as recognized by the
Constitution of India, is being misused by certain
persons for the purpose of pressurizing the State as
well as Government Officials to make them to accept
unreasonable demands. It is often noticed that many of
such grievances are not redressable under the
provisions of law but by pressurizing Government
Officials by issuing threats of fast unto death or self
immolation etc.. Present case is one of such examples
of adoption of pressurizing tactics and the Authorities
concern succumbing to the same. In spite of the fact
that the Petitioner did not approach the concerned
Authority for a period of 15 years and only because she
had threatened to go on a fast, authorities concerned

¶41

issued letter in order to dissuade her from doing so.
We strongly deprecate such pressurizing tactics adopted
by the people in order to get relief most of the times
which they are not entitled to. We could have imposed
costs on the Petitioner, but for the fact that the
Petitioner is a lady and is without income, we do not
propose to do so.

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

WP-4435-2024.odt

¶44

7.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is

¶45

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶46

(R. M. JOSHI, J)

¶47

 (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)

¶48

Malani

¶49

Page 6 of 6

Anjum Begam Abdul Khadir v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjum Begam Abdul Khadir v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eknath Ganpat Jadhav Vs the Competent Authority and S.L.A.O. and Sub Div. Officer Aurangabad and Ors.

Narayan Laxman Kathar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Mandabai W/O Jijaba Batule (Died) Thr Lrs Sheshrao and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaskar Shankar Torkadi Ex Army through Gpa Satish Bhaskar Torkadi Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Others

Savita Vijaykumar Golhar Alias Savita Bhaurao Kawale Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Sandipan Bhagvat Datal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ohter