The petition challenging the 1997 seniority list of an ITBP officer was dismissed due to immense delay (nearly 18 years). The court held that the claim was highly belated, the petitioner lapsed in challenging earlier lists, and intervention would disturb settled positions of third parties based on subsequent promotions.
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.
$~24
% Decided on : 06.10.2015
PRAKASH CHANDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anup Kumar and Mr.Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Manish Mohan, CGSC and Ms.Shreya Sinha, Government Pleader.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (OPEN COURT)
C.M.No.22041/2015 (for condonation of delay)
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in re-filing the
writ petition is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9434/2015
applied for the post of Inspector/Subedar (Overseer) through an open competition. He was selected and he submitted his technical resignation on
W.P.(C) No.9434/2015
Page 1
03.12.1991. After he joined the services as an Inspector with ITBP, the seniority list of Inspectors was issued on 01.07.1997 wherein he was shown as Sl.No.15. He made a representation on 31.07.1997 which was dismissed by the respondent on 04.09.1997. Another seniority list dated 31.07.2000 was issued wherein he was shown at Sl.No.12 and in the seniority list of
Inspectors dated 31.01.2003, he was shown at Sl.No.8. He made a representation dated 03.04.2003 which was rejected on 10.09.2003. The seniority list was again issued on 01.01.2005 wherein he was shown at Sl.No.6 and in the in the seniority list dated 01.01.2007, he was shown at Sl.No.2. He was promoted as regular Assistant Commandant (Engineer Cadre) on 30.05.2007. Seniority list of Assistant Commandant was issued on 01.01.2008 wherein he was shown at Sl.No.19 and in the seniority list for the year 2009 issued on 01.01.2009 he was shown at Sl.No.17. Against this he made a representation dated 13.03.2009 which was not accepted by the respondents. A seniority list dated 31.07.2010 was issued wherein he was shown at Sl.No.8. It is submitted that he was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant on 09.05.2012 and in the seniority list dated 01.01.2014 of Deputy Commandant he was shown at Sl.No.13. He made a representation dated 17.11.2014 which was rejected in March, 2015. He again challenged
W.P.(C) No.9434/2015
Page 2
his seniority as Deputy Commandant and made a representation dated 02.07.2015 which was rejected on 07.07.2015. It is submitted that his seniority list as an Inspector had been wrongly prepared and his seniority was not determined at that time as per the rules and regulations applicable. It is prayed that the seniority list issued by the respondents in the year 1997 and on subsequent dates be quashed and his seniority be re-fixed/rectified as of Inspector (Overseer) in ITBP issued on 01.07.1997 and the subsequent seniority lists issued on the basis of the seniority list dated 01.07.1997 be also rectified and the respondents be directed to issue corrected seniority
lists.
W.P.(C) No.9434/2015
Page 3
various personnel including the petitioner based on such seniority lists. Although the petitioner had the occasion to challenge the said seniority list immediately when it was circulated, he did nothing except making one representation dated 31.07.1997 which was rejected on 04.09.1997; a second representation dated 03.04.2003 after the circulation of seniority list dated 31.01.2003 was later made. This representation was also rejected on 10.09.2003. His third representation was against the seniority list of Assistant Commandant dated 01.01.2009 which was also rejected. This clearly shows that the petitioner had not approached this court within reasonable time. He is challenging the seniority list of the year 1997 after almost 18 years. The claim of the petitioner is highly belated and no explanation is coming forward what to say a reasonable explanation for this delay. All the seniority lists showing the exact position of the petitioner had been circulated and were in the knowledge of the petitioner. He however chose to keep quiet. The present writ petition suffers with delay and laches. The petitioner had contended that he had been making the representations and therefore it cannot be said that he had not been challenging his seniority. It is a settled position of law as held by the Supreme Court in case of S.S.Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 10 that repeated
W.P.(C) No.9434/2015
Page 4
representations does not in any manner defeat the operation of doctrine of laches.
based on such seniority, which in turn was premised on the seniority list dated 31.07.1997. Intervention therefore would be unjustified as it would jeopardize settled seniority positions of third parties.
suffers from delay and laches. It is consequently dismissed.
DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)
OCTOBER 06, 2015 rb
W.P.(C) No.9434/2015
Page 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's writ petition regarding correction of 1997 seniority list is barred by delay and laches given the claim was made almost 18 years after the list was issued.
Whether repeated representations within the department negate the bar of laches preventing judicial intervention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.S.Rathore vs. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶29
S.S.Rathore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 10 · Who else cites this
Prakasha Chandra Singh
Union of India
S Ravindra Bhat
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
