Petitioner filed a writ challenging a 1989 seniority list in CISF, claiming erroneous placement after a 1995 overhaul. Court dismissed the petition, holding the claim stale due to inordinate delay and laches.
Petition dismissed as hopelessly barred by delay and 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.
$~10
SATNAM SINGH SANDHU ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Ms.Abha Malhotra, GP with Mr.Hemank Chawla, Advocate with Mr.Naveen Bhagar, DC-CISF for R-1 to R-3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R
% 04.04.2018
itself ought to be a ground to non-suit him. Learned counsel submits that the Seniority List in respect of the post of Assistant Commandants was initially drawn on 31.12.1989 (Annexure R-1) wherein the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.236, whereas respondents No.4, 5 & 6 were placed above him at Sr.No.209, 210 & 218 respectively. He states that the petitioner cannot plead ignorance about his placement in the Seniority List over the past several years and elect to approach the Court only in the year 2016, claiming that his seniority has been erroneously fixed below that of respondents No.4, 5 & 6.
31.12.1995 and was duly circulated vide letter dated 19.08.1997, is not denied. The petitioner has admittedly not taken any steps to challenge even the said Seniority List. Had the petitioner approached the Court within a reasonable time there from, it would have been a different matter.
HIMA KOHLI, J.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
APRIL 04, 2018 „hkaur‟
W.P.(C) 1976/2016
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a seniority list fixed nine years prior is maintainable despite inordinate delay?
Whether the petitioner's claim constitutes a stale one barring the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶14
AIR 1974 SC 2271 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satnam Singh Sandhu
Union of India
Hima Kohli
Pratiba Rani
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
