Dismissed¶15

Ashit Ghose @ Ashit Ghosh v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC4 Mar 2025WP.CT/37/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; Article 226; writ petition against C.A.T. Calcutta Bench order in O.A. No. 457 of 2018; 2007 selection process for Driver Engine Static; vacancies surrendered in 2009; 11-year delay in approaching Tribunal; 7-year delay in filing writ; Union of India v. N Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25; writ jurisdiction not for indolent; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The claim raised in the present writ proceeding is hopelessly barred by delay and laches. ¶12

Ashit Ghose @ Ashit Ghosh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

Ct. No.4 D/L-15 04.03.2025 (Naba)

¶2

W.P.C.T. 37 of 2025

¶3

Ashit Ghose @ Ghosh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Suryasarathi Basu

¶5

...for the Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Avinash Kankani

¶7

...for the Respondents

¶8

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶9

The present case arises out of a claim made by the applicant regarding a selection process of the year 2007 for appointment of Driver Engine Static. The recruitment process concluded way back in the year 2008 itself and the remaining vacancies were also surrendered in the year 2009. The present petitioner awoke from his deep slumber to seek relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the C.A.T.’) in respect of the recruitment process of the year 2007, by filing an application in the year 2018, i.e. about 11 (eleven) years later. The C.A.T. has rejected the claim by recording the fact that the vacancies were surrendered long back in the year 2009 itself. It is this order of the C.A.T. dated 14.05.2018 passed in O.A. No.457 of 2018 which is impugned in the present writ proceedings, instituted in the year 2025. The applicant

¶10

¶11

¶12

approached the C.A.T. after a delay of 11 (eleven) years. The order of the C.A.T. has been assailed before this Court after delay of 07 (seven) years. The claim is with respect to a recruitment process which concluded way back in the year 2009 itself. In view of these undisputed facts, we find that the claim raised in the present proceeding is hopelessly barred by delay and laches. The issue by now is settled by several decisions of the Apex Court, including decision in the case of Union of India Vs. N Murugesan reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25 that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not for indolent. The issue of delay and laches, in respect of relief of the nature claimed in the present proceedings cannot be brushed aside likely.

¶13

We, therefore, consider the claim, raised in the present writ proceedings to be hopelessly barred by delay and laches.

¶14

We find no reason to interfere with the order of the C.A.T. dated 14.05.2018 passed in O.A. No.457 of 2018.

¶15

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶16

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶17

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Ashit Ghose @ Ashit Ghosh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashit Ghose @ Ashit Ghosh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunit Moyra Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Rafikul Islam Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Arabinda Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mausumi Das and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Suvankar Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Jayasree Biswas & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.