Petitioner challenged non-selection for an unskilled workman post, claiming higher merits despite recruitment concluding in 2013. Court dismissed writ due to 5-year delay and laches, allowing third-party rights to mature beyond the standard one-year list validity.
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to cost.
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.
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010015742018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/569/2018
KAJAL DEY
S/O. SRI JOYDEV CH. DEY, VILL. 2 NO. TINGRAI NEPALI GAON, P.O. TINGRAI CHARIALI, P.S. DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE OIL INDIA LTD. REP. BY THE RESIDENTIAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OIL INDIA LTD., DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
2:THE CHIEF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS MANAGER
OIL INDIA LTD. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM
3:THE GROUP GENERAL MANAGER (FHQ AFFAIRS) CUM CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
OIL INDIA LTD. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM
4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM
5:THE ASSTT. EMPLOYMENT OFFICER
Page No.# 2/6
DULIAJAN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE P.O. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM
6:JAYANTA KONWAR
(UNSKILLED WORKMEN) C/O. MANAGER (EMPLOYEE RELATIONS) OIL INDIA LTD. P.O. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM
7:RAJU DAS
(UNSKILLED WORKMEN) C/O. MANAGER (EMPLOYEE RELATIONS) OIL INDIA LTD. P.O. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM
8:BHASKAR JYOTI GOGOI
(UNSKILLED WORKMEN) C/O. MANAGER (EMPLOYEE RELATIONS) OIL INDIA LTD. P.O. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM
9:NUMAL KUMAR GOGOI
(UNSKILLED WORKMEN) C/O. MANAGER (EMPLOYEE RELATIONS) OIL INDIA LTD. P.O. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM
10:INDRAJIT RAJKHOWA
(UNSKILLED WORKMEN) C/O. MANAGER (EMPLOYEE RELATIONS) OIL INDIA LTD. P.O. DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD
Page No.# 3/6
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, O I L
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 17.12.2021
Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned Advocate for the respondent Oil India Limited.
The grievance raised in this writ petition is that the respondent corporation issued a notification dated 6.10.2010 for recruitment to the post of unskilled workman. Though the petitioner applied for the post and appeared in the screening test held on 25.3.2012 and also in the interview held on 23.4.2013, the respondent Corporation started recruiting the selected candidates for unskilled workman vacancies, ignoring the better merit of the petitioiner.
The grievances of the petitioner is that though the petitioner got higher marks then the private respondents , the petitioner has not been issued any appointment orders.
Since a question of maintainability on the ground of belated approach to this Court by the petitioner was raised by the respondent Corporation , this Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 7.2.2018, kept the question of maintainability open and therefore, did not issue any notice to the selected candidates (the private respondents).
The facts available on record are as follows:
Page No.# 4/6
III. Thereafter viva voce was taken on different dates and it was completed on 30.4.2013. Final Serial list was published on
IV. The petitioner alleges that though the persons with lesser marks has been selected and appointed, but the petitioner was not selected.
V. Subsequently, after elapse of three years, the petitioner on 28.4.2016 filed an application under RTI Act seeking certain information, which was replied by the Corporation on 23.05.2016
VI. Thereafter on 3.1.2017, yet another RTI application was filed by the petitioner, which was replied on 1.2.2017
VII. Thereafter in the year 2018, the petitioner approached this court by way of filing the present writ petition.
In view of the admitted facts narrated hereinabove, it is clear that the petitioner has approached this court raising his grievance after 5 years from the conclusion of the recruitment exercise. The recruitment exercise was concluded in the year 2013 itself. The petitioner filed his application under Right to Information Act only 28.4.2016 i.e. after elapse of 3 years from the date of conclusion of the recruitment exercise and thereafter, the petitioner approached this court after 1 x ½ of furnishing information to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation i.e. on 23.5.2016. From the aforesaid it is clear that the petitioner was negligent in approaching this court and in the meantime, right of selected candidates has been matured due to negligent and latches on the part of the petitioner.
It is by now well settled that in absence of any rule, ordinary period of validity of select list should be one year. In State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra reported in (2006) 12 SCC 561, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 9 opined as follows:
"9. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said
Page No.# 5/6
panel."
In the case in hand, the final select list was published in the year 2013 and no rule or any provision is brought to the notice of the Court by the Petitioner, which depicts that the life of the Select list to be beyond one year. And at the same time, Mr.Sarma, Learned Senior Counsel, submits that there is no rule of Corporation providing life of a select list beyond one year.
It is by now well settled that the law of limitation would not strictly be applicable in a writ proceeding and delay should not to be applied as obstinate rule to deny relief in a writ proceeding, if otherwise same can be allowed. The law is also settled that if delay or laches approaching the writ court had already created right in favour of a third party, then relief can be denied on the ground of delay. What would constitute delay and laches in a given case would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no inflexible rule of interpretation can be laid down in that regard. However, in a matter involving selection and appointment, the Court is to be cautious in entertaining claims, when the same would lead to interference of the rights of the third parties. In view of such legal position, in catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the validity of a select list shall remain for one year, in absence of specific provision in that regards.
In the case of Dharam Pal Satyapal Limited and Others reported 2011 (1) GLT 625, this court had observed that delay is not an irremediable vitiating malady acknowledged by the rule of law eventuating refusal of relief though otherwise justified on merit and it is a matter of discretion exercisable in the facts of a given case. It was, however, observed that no premium can be extended to a party guilty of inaction and negligence resulting in conferment and consolidation of rights on the adversary.
In the case of Shiba Shankar Mahapartra and Ors v. State of Orissa reported in AIR 2010 SC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fence sitters cannot be allowed to raise the dispute or challenge the validity of an order after its conclusion. No party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the grounds for refusing the relief is on the ground of
Page No.# 6/6
delay and laches in approaching the court. The Supreme Court has further observed that the court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of the third party crystallizes in the interregnum.
In the case in hand, the petitioner's grievance relates to non selection of the petitioner in the post in question. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated herein above, and the paryaer made, could have been considered, if the petitioner had approached this Court within one year of the publication of the Select list. The petitioner, even filed his first RTI application, almost three years after publication of the Select List. And approached this Court, after five years from the publication of the Select List and after one and half year of his receipt of the information he sought.
In that view of the matter also, the writ petition can not be entertained at this stage.
In the above backdrop, the writ petition is dismissed. However no order as to cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition regarding non-selection is maintainable when approached after a long delay allowing third-party rights to crystallize.
Whether laches and negligence by the petitioner justify dismissal despite no statutory rule extending select list validity.
Whether the validity of a select list lapses after one year in the absence of a specific rule extending it.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar MishraExplained¶48
State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra (2006) 12 SCC 561 · Who else cites this
Dharam Pal Satyapal Limited and OthersExplained¶54
Dharam Pal Satyapal Limited and Others reported 2011 (1) GLT 625
Shiba Shankar Mahapartra and Ors v. State of OrissaExplained¶55
Shiba Shankar Mahapartra and Ors v. State of Orissa AIR 2010 SC 706 · Who else cites this
Kajal Dey
The Oil India Ltd.
Jayanta Konwar
Raju Das
Bhaskar Jyoti Gogoi
Numal Kumar Gogoi
Arun Dev Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
