Writ petition filed about eight months after the Central Administrative Tribunal directed a fresh medical examination of a candidate, with appointment if declared fit. Relying on Supreme Court precedent on delay and laches, the High Court dismissed the petition solely on grounds of unexplained 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.
$~72
Date of decision: 13.05.2025
.....Petitioners Through: Mr.Prem Shankar Singh, CGSC
versus
DESHBANDHU
.....Respondent Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 28579/2025 (Exemption)
W.P.(C) 6259/2025 & CM APPL. 28578/2025
“6. In view of the decision taken by this Tribunal in various OAs, we cannot take a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6259/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 7.05.2025 15:26:05
Page 1 of 3
divergent view in the present matter. Accordingly, the OA is also disposed of with a direction to the competent authority/respondent to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant by way of constituting an appropriate medical board in any government hospital except the hospital which has already conducted the initial and the review medical examination. Appropriate orders with respect to the candidature of the applicant on the basis of the outcome of such an independent/fresh medical examination be passed thereafter under intimation to the applicant.
7. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event the applicant is being declared medically fit, subject to his meeting other criteria, he shall be given appointment forthwith. The applicant, in such an eventuality, shall also be entitled to grant of all consequential benefits, however, strictly on notional basis. No costs.”
“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6259/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 7.05.2025 15:26:05
Page 2 of 3
the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.”
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 13, 2025 /rv/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6259/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 7.05.2025 15:26:05
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an eight-month-delayed writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order could be entertained without explanation for the delay and laches.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali BabuRelied on¶4
(2014) 4 SCC 108 · Who else cites this
Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman & Anr.
Deshbandhu
Navin Chawla
Renu Bhatnagar
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
