The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a seniority list due to inordinate delay and laches, noting that a prior challenge to a similar list in 1977 was rejected without being contested then.
The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.15721 of 1989 Date of Decision:- 09.07.2010
Shiv Kumar Patwari
....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others
....Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:Mr.H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Palika Monga, A.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has challenged the seniority list which was circulated by the Department on 1.1.1983 vide Annexure P-5.
Counsel for the respondents submits that the seniority list was initially circulated in the year 1975 vide Annexure R-5 against which the petitioner had preferred objections by filing a representation which was duly considered by the competent Authority and the decision thereon was conveyed to the petitioner vide communication dated 19.9.1977 (Annexure R-7). She contends that the seniority stands already settled and, therefore, fresh challenge to the seniority on the same grounds i.e. in the year 1989 which have been rejected by the competent Authority vide order dated 30.8.1977 is highly belated. A further contention is that even if the seniority list dated 1.1.1983 which is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition which is of the year 1989, again is belated by a period of six
C.W.P.No.15721 of 1989
-2-
years and, therefore, the present writ petition should not be entertained on the ground of delay and laches.
Counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain the delay in approaching this Court challenging the seniority list.
In view of the above, the contention as raised by the counsel for the respondents is accepted. The petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and also on the ground that the earlier representation preferred by the petitioner on the same grounds qua the seniority list earlier circulated stood rejected in the year 1977 which had not been challenged by the petitioner.
July 09, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the seniority list should be entertained despite the petitioner failing to explain the delay in approaching the court.
Whether the petition is barred by laches given the earlier rejection of objections to a similar seniority list in 1977 which was not challenged.
Whether the claim for challenging the seniority list of 1983 is belated after a lapse of six years.
Shiv Kumar Patwari
State of Haryana
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
