Chaudhary Mahesh Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

Chaudhary Mahesh Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the respondents' appointment as Assistant Commandants ('ACs') through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination ('LDCE') — and the consequent showing of the respondents as senior to the petitioner in the Deputy Commandant ('DC') gradation lists — is barred by delay and laches and therefore liable to be dismissed. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court formed the opinion that the writ petition is grievously belated (suffers from delay) and, on that ground alone, is liable to be dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Following the cited precedent (Chief Executive Officer v. S. Lalith) on the restraint observed in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where a grievance asserts a right after delay or laches with prejudice to the other party, the Court declined to adjudicate/declare the petitioner's belatedly-raised entitlement claim.

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay (and the associated grounds of staleness/laches).ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral judgment dated 23.07.2025 in W.P.(C) 458/2016, delivered by C. Hari Shankar, J. (bench included Om Prakash, J.; court name illegible in source). The petitioner, a promotee Deputy Commandant ('DC'), sought to challenge the respondents' appointment as Assistant Commandants ('ACs') through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination ('LDCE'), contending that when the respondents were so appointed the LDCE avenue had not been introduced in the Department Recruitment Rules, so that their appointments were, in the petitioner's submission, invalid. Yearly gradation lists in the DC grade showed the respondents senior to the petitioner, who professed awareness of the LDCE background only from 2014, an earlier approach being recorded around 2 September 2015, and no contemporaneous challenge had been raised. Examining the petition against the restraint governing writ jurisdiction — relying on Chief Executive Officer v. S. Lalith on delay and laches under Article 226 of the Constitution — the Court found the petition carried no justifiable reason for the petitioner's dormancy, held the claim stale, and DISMISSED the writ petition on the ground of delay. The merits of the LDCE-appointment contention were not adjudicated.

$~
* IN THEGCOURFDLAW
+ 8/206P(C) 45 1. W
K&O S EY MR D HAU C onrs . P eti
roug:T h e,dv b i h nkuC r. A M
s ver
FDA&RS NIO U dtpoR esn.
roug:T h Mr. A . Behra, Sr. Adv. with
PKSingh,AdvsfoRM r. - 4 to26
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC HARI SNK
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICPAK
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
23.075
C. HARI SNK,J .
1. Having heard larnd Counsel for the parties, we are of the e
opin thae w rsly gb dan c , on
grund,ab is ole th to m. e dis b
2. e Thif ont c . CM r i hb , hoaper wsf ti
is ha at the time when r t dt w n po es e r aointed p by way of
mted DL i mnl Comp t p a r e v Ex eti to ina m 1 as Aan t i s
dts man Co 2 , the avnu for a e nt me by LDCE had yet not oi p
n introb e uce in the d mn Rulecrui t R e s and ha, th t fo, the er
me ws nt oi ap fact o ips ega. l i

1 “LDCE” hereinafter

2 “ACs” hereinafter

Page 1 of 3

That klc e nt im apo on 2 ptmbr5 S1. e0 Thaft, er
t h e r swon i pt e ap ointds dtut irec AC s in 20 . Itis an
e pmi t a d tn s io ha, t af, almost h ert vry year e , grdtion list a s
w e r iued in w s h ic the dt w n por es e r shown as senior to the
onr eti p s .
4. T he ponrs w eti r pr e mted as Deputy Co o dts man 3 in
2 0 . The respondt hbmDCi2 a0 - 09 . Even at
t ha time, no chang was laid to the le ntal a i me of the nt oi p
dt. In the grade of DC, t n por es , the gr o dtion list a was iued s
lmost earya vnd itws olyi 2014 n tha eapl nscimd
d to hli a vunr ep the gh t o frmaAcR i I n 0, 2 and me tc o
learn that the respondents’ original
rmbl.notp e ca s whi LDCE
5. The writ peon does not co ti tai any just n fable reason as to i
y w hte onrs di p not sech o to wakeup nd a qui ec d t o he
dt being shown as AC and n por es af as DC as senior to ert h
14yas,bfingCu. them ovr
6. In i t sr ecn son i d Chief ExcutvOfier vS. Lalith 4 ,
th e r mCot h u pS a scry le d ht , whl e i gju rcsn xdto i
under Article 6 of the C 2 u of India, the Court has to be tion s
alive to the aspect of delay and laches and should not aow l stale
claim s to be ci. de The rlvant e gh from the said dec par son i
read s thus:
3 “DCs” hereinafter
4 205 SCOnLie916
1 W . P(C) 458/206 Page 2 of 3

Page 2 of 3

“24.The self - imposed stir econ in the xrcis of writ e
sdcton under Articlejur i 2 of the C on s ti u, wic have h
evold fr mj ntsuica phC,b
r. Suh e ictos fay , u ned xp l ior la esiond h c r e
of the factors wic could a h ume s s ae in de i g n f c n yig rlif e
when the detonay writ r i sc r mdy is invoked. In an e oite apr
se, w a c i t r coumay r e fust o i nvke t s x raoe dinypws if
t h e aplicn 's go r m is n t o aer hi s rgtcombined
with nde delay or laches and pr u judic to the other party e
chefl.nt s uar w ”
7. wing the F ol foresid, we are not a cled to d in clar the e
e fnt im apo hd, rsa bck i n21, 0 o b tel g
wmvdCu2015. ro fpac the ins
8. The writ peon is a ti ordingly c me on the ground of dis
f. gmrito wu hs c ndela y

C. HARI SNK,J .
OM PRAKSHUL,J .
JULY 23,05
dsn

Page 3 of 3