Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed this Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order that dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a Production Manager appointment, upholding the ruling that the appeal was barred by laches due to a ten-year and six-month delay.
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.
$~83.
..... Appellant Through: Mr. Javed Ahmad & Mr. Anis Ahmad, Advocates.
versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS
..... Respondents Through: Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate for respondents/ JMI.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
%
O R D E R 17.05.2017
C.M. No. 18684/2017
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
LPA 374/2017
The appellant has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal to assail the judgment dated 07.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C.) No. 6514/2002. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant on the ground of laches.
The writ petition had been preferred by the appellant to assail the
cancellation of the selection process for the post of Production Manager. The cancellation took place by the impugned order dated 16.11.1991. The writ petition was filed by the appellant on 08.10.2002. Thus, there was a delay of ten and a half years in filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty , (2011) 3 SCC 436, and an earlier decision of this Court in Ms. Preeti Sharma Vs. Ganga International School & Others , W.P. (C.) No. 7792/2015 decided on 19.01.2017, rejected the writ petition on the ground of laches.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the decision contained in the impugned order was not confirmed by the Board of Management for 14 years and it was only during pendency of the writ petition that the same was considered. He, therefore, submits that there was no delay in filing the writ petition. He further submits that the impugned decision was not communicated to the appellant earlier when it was passed.
We cannot accept either of the aforesaid submissions. It is clear that the impugned order dated 16.11.1991 was put into effect immediately upon its being issued. No appointment letter was issued to the appellant appointing him as Production Manager. Though the appellant states that he has joined the post of Production Manager, he has not produced any joining report. Admittedly, he had not received any salary for the post of Production Manager. The stand taken by the appellant that he had joined the said post clearly appears to be incorrect and he appears to be taking advantage of the fact that he was a departmental candidate and was serving in other capacity. The writ petition was, therefore, clearly barred by delay and laches and the same has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single
Judge.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 17, 2017 B.S. Rohella
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of laches should be allowed.
Whether the delay of ten and a half years in filing the writ petition to challenge the cancellation of selection bars the relief.
Whether the fact that the decision was not confirmed by the Board of Management for 14 years exempts the appeal from dismissal on grounds of delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa Vs. Mamata MohantyReferred¶16
State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 · Who else cites this
Ms. Preeti Sharma Vs. Ganga International School & OthersReferred¶16
Ms. Preeti Sharma Vs. Ganga International School & Others, W.P. (C.) No. 7792/2015
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NUSRAT ZAFAR
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
VIPIN SANGHI
DEEPA SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
