Dismissed

Mukti Devi W/O Late Mamchand Yadav, D/O Harish Yadav v. Board of Secondary Education

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2023CW/18989/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought correction of her name in her Secondary School Examination marksheet (1996-1998). The High Court dismissed the writ petition as filed after an unexplained delay of 23 years, holding that the principle of laches bars relief under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on grounds of delay and laches.

Mukti Devi W/O Late Mamchand Yadav, D/O Harish… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:14694]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18989/2019

¶4

Mukti Devi W/o Late Mamchand Yadav, D/o Harish Yadav, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Topkhana Ward No. 4, Khetri District Jhunjhunu.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Saini, Mr. Mahesh Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

19/07/2023

¶13

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for seeking correction of her name in marksheet and certificate of the Secondary School Examination-1996 to 1998 as ‘Smt. Mukti Devi’ in place of ‘Smt. Mukut’.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was given compassionate appointment in the year, 1994 and appeared in the Secondary School Examination in the year, 1996 to 1998 wherein name of the petitioner is mentioned ‘Smt. Mukut’ whereas in the service record, her name is ‘Smt. Mukti Devi’. He further submits that when the matter came up for seeking promotion, the respondent did not consider the marksheet/certificate in the name of ‘Smt. Mukut’ because her name in the service record is ‘Smt. Mukti Devi’. He further submits that her name in the

[2023:RJ-JP:14694]

[CW-18989/2019]

(2 of 4)

marksheet/certificate of Secondary School Examination-1996 to 1998 may be ordered to be corrected as ‘Smt. Mukti Devi’.

¶19

Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has prayed for correction in the marksheet/certificate of Secondary School Examination-1996 to 1998. The regulations of the Board provides for an opportunity to the candidate to make an application for correction in the name, surname, date of birth in the marksheet/certificate within a period of five years, after the declaration of result of the exam.

¶20

Considered the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for their respective parties.

¶21

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed this present writ petition in the year, 2019 for correction of her name in the marksheet/certificate of Secondary School Examination-1996 to 1998 i.e. after a lapse of more than 23 years whereas the regulations of the Board provides an application for such correction within a period of five years only. It is well settled law that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India should have been invoked within a reasonable period.

¶22

In case, “Smt. Narayani Debi Khaitan V. The State of Bihar” (CA No.140 of 1964; judgment dated September 22, 1964), observed:

¶23

“It is well-settled that under Article 226, the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary. There can be no doubt that if a citizen moves the High Court under Article 226, and contends that his fundamental rights have been contravened by any executive action, the High Court would naturally like to give relief to him; but even in such a case, if the petitioner has been guilty of laches, and there are other relevant circumstances which indicate that it would be inappropriate for the High Court to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, ends

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JP:14694]

[CW-18989/2019]

of justice may require that the High Court should refuse to issue a writ. There can be little doubt that if it is shown that a party moving the High Court under Article 226 for a writ is, in substance, claiming a relief which under the law of limitation was barred at the time when the writ petition was filed, the High Court would refuse to grant any relief in its writ jurisdiction. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. That is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the High Court and like all matter left to the discretion of the Court, in this matter too discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably.”

¶28

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of “Shiv Dass V. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.” reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274 in para-5 is

¶29

observed as under:

¶30

“Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’). In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, cause prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad V. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Ors. MANU/SC/0004/1968 : [1969]2SCR861. Of course, the discretion has to be exercise judicially and reasonably.”

¶31

In view of the above pronouncement, while invoking the writ jurisdiction by delay one has to give proper explanation in regard to the delay. It is well settled law that Court can refuse to issue writ in case of unexplained delay in filing the writ petition. In view of the law, cited above and the fact that the petitioner has filed this present writ petition by a delay of 23 years, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

[2023:RJ-JP:14694]

[CW-18989/2019]

(4 of 4)

This writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶36

The pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶37

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J