Dismissed¶33

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Avgalla Meena

Delhi HC14 May 2025W.P.(C)/6340/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Avgalla Meena, High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 6340/2025, decided 14.05.2025 by Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar JJ. (Navin Chawla J., oral). Keywords: delay and laches; Article 226; writ petition against CAT order; Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench; O.A. No. 885/2024; fresh/re-medical examination by medical board; Constable (Exe.)(Female); Delhi Police Examination 2023; perceived unfitness; Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108; unexplained delay of thirteen months; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the writ petition and the pending application were dismissed on account of delay and laches, leaving the Tribunal's directions intact. ¶33

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs Avgalla Meena — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the writ petition and the pending application were dismissed on account of delay and laches, leaving the Tribunal's directions intact.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, filed about thirteen months after the impugned Tribunal order without any justification, is barred by delay and laches and should not be entertained. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

In view of the unexplained delay of about thirteen months in filing the petition, the Court does not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned Tribunal order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The petition, along with the pending application, is dismissed on account of delay and laches.

¶33

Key takeaways

In re-medical examination matters arising from recruitment, the authorities must act with expedition, since delay causes irretrievable injustice to the candidate awaiting the outcome and administrative chaos if employment is later offered; the petitioners therefore cannot challenge the impugned order at their leisure while defying the Tribunal's direction.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delay and laches — Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Staff Selection Commission challenging the order dated 11.03.2024 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 885/2024, whereby the Tribunal allowed the respondent's O.A. and directed her fresh medical examination by an appropriate medical board in a government hospital other than the one that had conducted the initial and review examinations, arising from rejection of her candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.)(Female) in the Delhi Police Examination, 2023 on the ground of perceived unfitness — Petition filed on 15.04.2025, i.e., with an unexplained delay of about thirteen months — Reliance on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, on the doctrine of delay and laches — Held, in matters of re-medical examination the authorities must act with expedition, as delay causes irretrievable injustice to the candidate and administrative chaos to the authorities, and the petitioners cannot challenge the impugned order at their leisure while defying the Tribunal's direction — In view of the unexplained delay, not proper to interfere with the impugned order — Petition along with the pending application dismissed on account of delay and laches.

¶1

$~101

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 14.05.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 6340/2025 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms.Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Adv for Mr.Amit Gupta, SPC

¶5

versus

¶6

AVGALLA MEENA .....Respondent Through: Ms.Esha Mazumdar, Ms.Setu Niket & Ms.Muskan Sharma, Advs

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

CM APPL. 28940/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 6340/2025 & CM APPL. 28939/2025

¶13

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 885/2024, titled Avgalla Meena v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. , allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent with the following directions:

¶14

“9. The present OA is accordingly disposed

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6340/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:38:38

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

of with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant by way of constituting an appropriate medical board in any government medical hospital except the Hospital which has already conducted the initial and the review medical examination.

¶19

10. Needless to say that the competent authority shall thereafter pass appropriate orders with respect to the candidature of the applicant on the basis of the outcome of such an independent/ fresh medical examination.

¶20

11. The directions contained herein shall be complied with within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event of the applicant being declared medically fit and subject to his meeting other criteria, she 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.”

¶21

As it is evident from the above, the Impugned Order had granted six weeks’ time to the petitioners herein to comply with the directions passed by the learned Tribunal. However, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners on 15.04.2025, that is, with a delay of about thirteen months, without any justification thereof.

¶22

In this regard, we may draw reference to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu , (2014) 4 SCC 108, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶23

“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

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6340/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:38:38

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect 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.”

¶28

In the present case, the respondent had approached the learned Tribunal being aggrieved of the rejection of her candidature for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.)(Female) in the Delhi Police Examination, 2023 on the ground of her perceived unfitness. The learned Tribunal has directed her re-medical examination. In such matters, the petitioners have to act with expedition as delay causes not only irretrievable injustice to the respondent, who would keep waiting in hope that she may be declared fit in such re-examination and may secure employment and, therefore, leave out other opportunities of employment that may come her way in the interregnum , but also to the petitioners as well in the form of administrative chaos if the respondent is to be later offered employment. The petitioners,

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6340/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:38:38

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

therefore, cannot be allowed to challenge the Impugned Order at its leisure and in the meantime, defy the direction of the learned Tribunal with impunity.

¶33

In view of the unexplained delay, we do not deem it proper to interfere with the Impugned Order in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vested in us. 7. The petition along with the pending application, is accordingly, dismissed on account of delay and laches.

¶34

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶35

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶36

MAY 14, 2025/ rv/SJ

¶37

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6340/2025 By:RENUKA NEGI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:38:38

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Avgalla Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Avgalla Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maanoj Agarwala Vs Idbi Bank

Loconav India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi and Anr.

Sandeep Chopra Vs Commissioner of MCD & Ors.

Rajkumar Sukhdevsinhji & Anr. Vs Idbi Bank

Sunny Jagga Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nkc Projects Private Limited Vs Dcit Circle -16(1) New Delhi

Anshul Rajput Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.

Shikhar Prasad Vs Union of India & Ors.

Staff Selection Commision, through Its Chairman & Anr. Vs Deshbandhu

Lokesh Prabhakar Vs Archna Prabhakar

Pushpender Vs Sonia Choudhary

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs Vivek Bharat Ram & Ors.

Staff Selection Commission & Anr. Vs Veerendra Singh

Ms. Sharanjit Kaur Kohli Vs Ramandeep Singh Kohli