Dismissed

Malothu Ramulu, Khammam Dist and 4 Others v. Chairman and Md, Ts Genco, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Telangana HC21 Oct 2024WP/35975/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five petitioners applied for Junior Plant Attendant posts after a 16-year delay, claiming higher merits than a candidate appointed by a single judge's order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the doctrine of laches and inordinate delay without explanation precluded exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without awarding any order as to costs.

Malothu Ramulu, Khammam Dist and 4 Others Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUIUAR JUKANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35975 oF 20{5

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Malothu Ramulu, s/o Bheekya, Agqd about 41 years, Occ Unemployee, Rl/o H. No. 2-94, Vitlage Garibpeta,"post njrar'riJr, Koth;gft;fi-'M;hd;i Khammam District^'

¶9

2 Vajja_Rama Rao, s/o Abbulu, Aged about 42 years, Occ Unemployee, Rl/o H. No. 5-76.Village Madepaily, p6st and C.e.'singinoobpa6r: kirth;S;jeil Mandal, Khammam Distiict

¶10

3 fl[qky^a _L.qxnp,^{s/o Bheekya,Aged about 44 years,} Occ Unemptoyee, R:/o H-No.2-1 45, Post and Viildge S-eethampeta e6n;iid, folr,agudjm'M;hj;i Khammam District

¶11

4 PIVkV-u.Dasru,^{s/o Harya, Aged..about 46 years,} Occ Unemployee, R/o H.No.2-132, Post and Viilage Seethampet, Koihigridem Mandal,'K6inima, . District

¶12

5 Malotu Ramdas, s/o Balu, Aged abou_t 39 years, Occ Unemployee, R:/o H-No.2-3-65l 1, Ramdas Thaniia, post Sujathd r,li!ar, t<otnaguaE,il[/ild;i Khammam District..

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The T.S.GENCO, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hydeirabad.

¶16

T.he General Manager (Admn), T.S. GENCO, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶17

The General Manager (HR), T.S.GENCO, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

¶18

The Chief Engineer, O & M KTPS-V Stage, T.S. GENCO, patoncha, Khammam District

¶19

T.he Principal secretary, Energy Department, state of relangana, secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be

¶22

pleased to issue a I or(ler or direction more^{particularlyone n the nature of Writ} of MANDAMUS rJeclaring the^{action of respondentsin not crnsidering the claim} of the^petitioners 'or erppointment^{of Junior Plant Attendar t even thoughthey} secuied more marlls than^{other selected candidate and belorrg to S:hedule Tribe} community as^hig hly^{llegal, arbitrary, unco nstitutio nal, aprlrt frorn violative of} Principles of Naturrl^{Justice and consequentlydirect the res6,ondentsto consider} the claim of the^{petil.ioners for appointment as Junior f)lant lrttendants by} considering their merit^{and their social community(sr;hedule;dTribe) by} extending the ben:fit^{of judgement rendered by this Honbl,: court in w.P.No.} 391 0f 2OO4 datel^{29.12.2010which wasconfirmedin w.A. Nc. 89 0f 2011} dated 23.1^{1 .201 1 'vithall consequentialbenefits.}

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015^{(W!MP. NO: 46263 OF 2015)}

¶24

Petition unc er section^{'1 51 CPC prayingthat in the c ircumstances stated} in the affidavit file I in support^{of the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} consider the clain of the^{petitionersfor appointment as Jur ior Pla nt Attendants} by considering th:ir rnerit^{and theirsocialCommunity(S;cheduledTribe)by} extending the berefit^{rtf judgement rendered by this Hon'ble Court in W P' No'} 391 of 2004 daleT 21t.12.2010^{which was confirmedin \A'.A.No. 89 of 201'1} dated 23.11.2011 duly disposing^{of the representationdated01.08.2015of the} petitioners pendinr; disposal of the writ^petition.

¶25

Counsel for the P+rtitioners:^{SRI N.RAMESH}

¶26

Counsel for the R,:spondent^{No.1to 4: SRI G.VIDYASAGAIl,Sr. C:OUNSEL,} REP. FOR Mrs. UDAYA S,Rl, SC FOR^GENCO

¶27

Counsel for the R,:spondent^{No.5: GP FOR ENERGY}

¶28

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶29

'aa

¶30

THE TION'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.35975 0F 2015

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking the foilowing relief:

¶34

"to issue an order or d.trection more pdrticulorlA one in the form of Wft of MANDAMIJS declaing the action of respondents in not consideing the clatm of the petitioners for appointment of Junior Plant Attendant euen though theg secured more marks than other selected candidqte and belong to Schedute Tibe Communitg as highlg illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, apart from uiolatiue of Principles of Natural Justice; and consequentlg direct the respondents to consider tlrc claim of the petitioners for appointment as Junior plant Attendants by considering their meit and their social Communttg (Scheduled Tibe) by extending the benefit of judgment rendered bg thi,s Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.391 of 2004 dated 29.12.201O tuhich uas conf.rmed tn W.A.No.89 of 2011 dated 23.11.201i wtth oll consequential benefits and pass such other and_ further^{order of orders as this Hon'ble} Court mag deem fit^{and properin the circumstances} of^the case".

¶35

Heard Mr. N. Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing

¶36

Mrs. Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶37

Brief facts:-

¶38

A notihcation, dated O2.O2.1ggg, was issued by Chief Engineer/O&M, KTPS-V Stage, TSGtrNCO for filling up 222 posts of Junior Plant Attendants (for short "JPA"), of which, 1O7 posts for Electrical Branch, 100 posts for Mechanical Branch (fitters/welders/turners/machinist) and 15 posts for

¶39

¶40

2 JAK,J \r P No.3 597-5 o12015

¶41

Instrumen.atirn Branch. Maximum age limit^pr,tscribe d \ras 25 years, five yeEU's age relaxation was^given to cancidates belonging to SC/S:['7 BC and 10 years to^{physicallyhandi:aplred persons.} 5,742 app.icatrons \tere received,^{interviews were condltctedfrom} 05.11.199!) to 25.11.1999. Petitioner^Nos.2 to^{5 rverecalled for} intervierv,^-eco:d pertaining to^{petitionerNo. 1 cot ld no1 be traced} out, whe tl rer he u,as subjected to interview or^{not .Petitioners} herein secrrrerl the following marks:

¶42

"F'etitioner No.2 secured 71.5 marks, I'etitioner I\ o.3 secured 72.7 matks, Petitioner No.4 securt:d 7 1. 1.1 marks and Petitioner No.5 secured 6 Lli¹ i Larkr;. The last caldidate in S.T. category securi:d 77.3.i marks in the cadre of JPA (Electriciarr). In the c rteg()r], of JPA (Fitter), the last ca:rdidatt, in S.I. c rtegl<rry secured 77 .54 narks."

¶43

Weig htag;e of marks was awarded basing on the length of service i.,:. for- a candidate who worked for 3 years and above^407o, for a cand datt: rvho worked for 2 years and belorv 35'% and^{for a} candidatt: wh,r rvorked between 1 year and 2^yet rs 3o'lo^{and the} same was nolilied vide Memo, dated 06.10.1999.^{'l'he said memo} was challe rgec vide W.P.No.23439 of 1999 and tlris Corrrt^passed an interirr orcler, dated 23.11.1999, stating tha t alloc ation and appointrne rt rvas subjected to further orders in rvri I^petition. Pursuant ,o t:re directions of this Court, 217 :ar-did ates were appointed for posts of JPA including 34 candi lates who were awarded w:ig}-rtage marks as per Memo. The said rrit p,,tition was

¶44

JAK,J W.P.No.35975 of 20t5

¶45

¶46

¶47

disposed of on O6.09.20O0. In the final order, this Court held that any weightage given shall not exceed lOVo of the total marks. This Court directed to re-consider the fiIling up of 10 posts of Sub Engineers and 34 posts of JPA's, after taking into consideration the claims made by all.

¶48

A batch of contempt cases were filed vide C.C.No. 1 1O of 2OO 1 for violation of directions of orders in W.p.No.23439 of 1999 and, batch, this Court passed the followrng order:

¶49

"... as most of the contract labour, who are not the petitioners in the earlier Writ Petitrons, have now appr_oached this Court by way of filing Contempt Cases and much water has flor,rm from the date of judgment i.e., O6.09.2000. I feel that no purpose will be served in directing the respondent Corporation to issue a fresh notification and invite applications a-fresh. Hence, I would like to limit the consideration for the persons who are working as contract labour ard approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petitions and the contract labour who have approached this Court by fi1ing Contempt Cases only. The respondent Corporation shall consider the claims of all these individuals by process of selecLion ald after preparing the merit list, appointments may be made duly observing the rule of reservation in favour of tJre reserved categories. It is further clarified that the consideration is limited to the contract labour who worked or are working in KTPS only and their age has to be reckoned from the late of their.first engagement."

¶50

Petitioners did not question the appointment(s) made by respondent Corporation. Petitioners along with others challenged the action of respondents in selecting candidates with less number of marks than petitioners for post of JPA, vide W.P.No.2817 of

¶51

¶52

JAK,J U .P.No 359?5^{of 2015}

¶53

2002.^{Writ per.itionwas disposed of along with W I' No '+t)4 of 2OO2} and batch^{by a common order' dated11 04'20 J2' rvhich is as}

¶54

follows

¶55

"Nor-re of^{the petitionersin W'Ps & C C; did not} cuestion^{the appointmentsmadeby the boardto t1e} ,"ri" "C,rr"^Sub-Engrneer -J,t.a " 02 o2'rsss^{and JPAs} issued^pursu'nl bY^{to 1-re} t l" l ;.i;;;; ;;A;NCo.^{After the court setaside1!"} made by^{giving weightagem uf<s,o11]1} , ,n'or.e ""I,;",*"",= cla=s^{of contract labour and suslirll)eo rrrc} ,-f I :."0.-J "1 ",,',il .^."'t,tt t.-i^regard aia^{to the} not^{mate others and selection ever aftel a s per lhelhe} Uri.Lio.r,^{o[ this Court, they did not chor 'sr't o -rle} lon, ,.mpr cases or writ petiLions^q:"=:'i i'I^c.. ,l: ;elecLions^{made by the respondentsBoar-d,airer' Ine} ,Vri Petitjons^{were disposedo[f' It is onl] iutcrI} iit,'a'in" fro."."^{ol selection' these-peo;le star'ed} ,noroaching.^{this Court ln the light ot \leu tarcn Dy} -"^{th..e r.riitpetitionshave lo lail on the gtoun(or} i;;r,-;.^{Therefore, Idid not permit Mr' Ramala,} f,""i""a^{counsel for thesewrit petitioner;.to riLlse} ,.t- Ltt".^{contentions The writpetiiions are} accordinglY^dismissed"

¶56

7 . Sornc c'f^{petitionersin W'P No 494 of 2OC2 and batchfiled} W.A.No.971^{c,f 2003 challenging the orderof lealned S ingle Judge'} dated¹ |^{04 '.lOO2,and said Writ Appealwas disnrissed}

¶57

Pe -itic,trers^{in this writpetitionare rLeitherparties to} W.P.Nc,.i^{34)9 of 1999 and batch nor in C'C N'r' 110 of 2OO1and} Court ir^{Nove mber,2O 1 5} batch.^{Petitioners approachedthis} beneht as^{directedinthe} seeking a^{clirection toextendthe} of 2OO4 and^c:onhrmedin judgmer t lendered^inW'P'No'391 W.A.No.39^{of 2011, dated 23.'ll 2oll} . Grievar^{ce o[} Petitioners^is

¶58

t'i

¶59

5 JAK,J W.P.No.35975 of 2015

¶60

that they are entitled to be appointed as JPA's, AS they scored much higher marks than petitioner in W.P.No.391 of 2004. Hence, writ petition.

¶61

Learned counsel for petitioners submits .that petitioners scored the following marks in I.T.I examination: 561, 525, 537, 530 and 473, petitioner No.5 secured 473 marks in Fitter^Trade. Specific case of petitioners is that^{petitioner(s)} in^W.P.No.391of 20O4 secured 524 marks and that, petitioners secured^moremarks and are eligible for posts of JPA in respondent organization.^{It is} submitted thht there are vacancies in the said^{categories, and} petitioners Lreing eligible having secured more number of marks be appointed. It is submitted that respondents^{hlled up total 26 posts} of JPA, apart from 222 posts invited in^{the year 1999 and that} petitioners worked on contract basis, but their^{cases were not} considered for reasons best known to respondents.

¶62

It is submitted that candidates^who secure^{higher marks,} should be appointed and not^{who obtained lesser marks.Itis} submitted tinat 82 posts of JPA's^{were meant for Schedule Tribes} and said number of posts are^{filied up vide Memo,dated} 2l.OL.2OO2. It.is submitted that^petitioner in^{W.P.No.391 of 2OO4} belong(s) to the same^.communityas that of^{petitioners,and}

¶63

6 JAK,J W.l, N,r.3,s975 of 2015

¶64

secured l:ss marks. It is further submitted^{lhat rrlspondents} preferre(l'V.A.No.89 of 2oll and the Hon'b1e^{DivisionBe nch of this} Court by or,ler dated 23.11..2O11 dismissed thc^{appeal. Itis} pointed out ttrat as petitioners stand on better .botin5l to that^of petitioncr in^{'Jr'.P.No.39L} of 2OO4, same benefil^{be extendedto} petitionerr scorcd higher marks and are eligible.

¶65

1i. Learnerl Senior Counsel appearing for^{resl,onderrtshas not} disputed thc facts. It is submitted that pelitioners^applied pursuant to notifrcation dated 02.O2.1999 and st cured the following rtarl<s:- Petitioner No.2- 71.5 marks,^?etitro rer^No.3 - 72.7 rnarL, s. l),:trtioner No.4 - 77.14 marks in the trlectr.cian Trade and Petitione- No.5 had secured 61.81 marks in JPA^{(Fitter Trade),} whereas liLst candidate in ST Category secured 7".54 nLarksⁱⁿ ST CategorJ, of .IFA (Fitter Trade). It is also submittt:d thal, there was no record perlaining to petitioner No.1 and it corrld noL be traced out whell:r hr: was subjected to interview or not.

¶66

It ir submitted that marks secured by petitionr'rs in their respective ca1.e:gories are less compared to that of last c:rndrdate in the respe:tir,e categories i.e., less Lhan 77.35 marl<s in JPA (Electricra-r^(irade), less than 77 .54o/o in catego ry of ,JPA (Fitter Grade). Tt at oetitioners are not eligible for the int,:rvierv which was the mode rf selection. It is submitted that this Court had held that

¶67

7 IAK,J W.P.No.35975 of 2015

¶68

(n l0o/o ol weightage marks should be granted instead of 40o/o for those candidates who rendered services for various years as contract labour and that respondents followed the directions issued by High Court. It is also submitted that petitioners were given same weightage of marks as others, yet petitioners did not qualify.

¶69

It is submitted that W.P.No.391 of 2OO4 was filed by one B. Harja and this Court vide order dated 29.12.2010 allowed writ petition and directed respondents to issue order of appointment for the post of JPA. It is further submitted that in the writ appeal hled against the orders of W.P.No.39 L of 2OO4, was dismissed. It is further submitted that if petitioners are seeking extgnsion of benelrt in W.P.No.39 | of 2OO4, it is imperative that petitioners satisfy the Court that writ petition hled is not hit by Principle of Delay and Laches and Acquiescence.

¶70

Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the^judgment of Apex Court in State o;f Uttar Pradesh and others a. Anind Kumar Sriuastaurz and otherst and contended that the order in W.P.No.391 of 2OO4 is an order in personam and not an order in rem. It was pointed out that if petitioners intended to get the benelit as sought for, they must satisfy the Court that the petition

¶71

'(2015)^{I scc347}

¶72

¶73

JAK.J 8 W P.N o.35975 of20t5

¶74

does not ;ufle r from either laches,^{delaysor acqriesccnceas held} by the t\1 ex^(lourt. It is submitted that^{petition:rs farled to offer} any expl:mat:on to the Court with^regard to^{lzrcher;,delay or} acquiesce ece.

¶75

It ir fur[her submitted that^{contempt case} '\ras^{hled by some} of the p,;titic,ners in the batch i.e.,^{W.P.No.4)4 of 2OO2 and} pursuant to orders of this Court, appointmentti^{u'ereissued for} JPA's, thr Lt pertitioners were neither^{parties in w:-itpet tion nor in} contempt case, hence, petitioners cannot now^come and^claim parity. T rat if at all the principle of parity^h.,rs t:) be^made applicabk to petitioners, they should^{have appr<,achcc,this Court} at the earliest point of time,^{petitioners having nol dont so, are not} entitled fc r any relief as prayed for.

¶76

Herrd l:arned counsels, perused the record^{and considered} rival subr rissions.

¶77

Not Lfica[ion was issued for 222 posts on 02,02.1999^{by Chief} Engineer, O&IIiI/KTPS-V Stage for the posts of JPA, of which¹⁰⁷ posts wer e in vited for Electrician Trade, 1O0^pos ts for Mechanical Trade i e., fitter/welder/ turners etc ancl 15 posts^for instrume: rtal:icn trade. Maximum age limit was 25 years, 5 years o: rel,axation was granted to SC/ST/BC communities and

¶78

9 JAK,J W.P.No.35975 of 20 t5

¶79

¶80

10 years for physically handicapped persons. Pursuant to said notification, 5,i42 applications were received and interviews were conducted from O5.1 1. 1999 to25.11.1999.

¶81

Petitioners made applications for JPA's, petitioners No. 1 to 4 applied for JPA (Electrician Trade), petitioner No.5 applied for post of JPA (frtter). It is pertinent to note that in JPA, electrician trade, last candidate in ST Category secured 77.35 marks, ST candidate in the category of htter trade, secured 77.54 marks. None of the petitioners secured above 77 .35 marks in electrician trade or 77 .54 in fitter trade. It is not the case of petitioners that petitioners secured higher marks than the last candidate in the respective trade categories in the selection process.

¶82

Petitioners contend that they secured higher marks in the I.T.l (Diploma) examination i.e., 561, 525, 537, 530 marks in Electrician Trade and 473 marks in Fitter Trade. That having secured more marks than petitioner in W.P.No.391 of 2OO4 are eligible for being appointed as J.P.A's. Petitioner in W.P.No.391 of 2004 (B.Harja) secured 524 marks in I.T.I (Diploma) examination. It is pertinent to note that marks secured in I.T.l (Diploma) examination are not the selection criteria.

¶83

¶84

JAK,J W.l'No.35975 ot20l5

¶85

Wril Petition No.391 of^{2OO4was Iiled by I). Har a with the}

¶86

following I )ra)trr:-

¶87

"issue a Writ Order or direction^mr)re particularly one in the nature^{of Writof Marldaff us} rleclaring the impugned action of the respo-rdentsⁱⁿ rrot considering the^petitioner to^{the post c,f JP,\ on} rhe basis of Apprenticeship as per the Juc^{gment of} r he llon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC^{I I 15} 'JPSF:TC Vs U P Parivahal N S B Sangh Casc by 1fvin14^{preferencein spiteof specificorders .ssuedby} .his Honbie Court in W.P.No.17014/9 ), daied .2.E.1999 and frlling up the^post of^{JPA both by} . rotilrcation dated. 2.2.1999 and^{withoutnotihc.rtion} ' ,ide proceedings dated 2l .Ol .2OO2 anc furtl rer rctirrn of the respondents in now^{contempla,ing to f11l} rp rlLe further vacancies of JPA^{withoutccnsidenng} reti.ioner on preferential basis as highlf^illellal ,^{rbitrary and vioiative of Art14 and 16 of'.he} lonstitution ol India".

¶88

Thir Ccrurt on29.l2.2O1O^{passedthe follow ng or(.er}

¶89

''222 posts of JPA were notified by^rhe 'espc,ndents. Reservation to the extent o: b9t, \'as ;trpulated in favour of ST candidates. In^arlditionto rolcling the relevant qualifrcations, the^{peti.ioner rlid} rpprcnticeship with the respondents ald^{he worl;ed} rs c:ontract labour for a^period of three^{ytar:s.u' ith} hern. The notifrcation stipulated that^{tlLe m:rlks} ;ecru'ed by the caldidates in the I.T.I exzmlinatlon voul,l be standardized to 9Oo/o, and 10o/o rlarks^lrre :armarked for assessment in the interview Initia^ly, he respondents sought to add^4Oo/" marks^{in far'<,ur} rf tLe candidates, who were engaged as contrilct abc,rrr. That would have secured an edlle to^the letiLioner. Some of the candidates challenged^the rcti,r n of the respondents in^proposing to^{add 4l)%} narks for contract labour, by frling W.P.No.23439 of t999. The writ petition was allowed and the sud rou.:ie was found fault with. A different for rrula u.as ;uggested. On account of working of the {tarne. lhe )etiLioner, who secured 524 marks out of 7r)0, in the .T.1.. and 6 marks in the interview; was not selectr:d, vhereas an O.C. candid2ftd-,=by name, Naga SriniviLsa ?ao, who secured 481 marks in -he I T.l

¶90

JAK,J W.P.No.35975 of 2015

¶91

¶92

¶93

exaanination, and 6.33 marks in the interview; was selected.

¶94

' Though arr attempt is made by the respondents to justi$, the action, ary anount of explanation would not support such an anomaly. Strictly speaking, the petitioner should have been selected against an unreserved vacancy, by virtue of his merit. If there existed aly stumbling block for it, he ought to have been selected against a -vacancy, earmarked for STs. One does not frnd any insta-nce at all, where a candidate from a reserved category has secured more number of marks, tllan a caldidate from unreserved category; but not selected. Any anount of inflation of marks in the interview cannot a-lter the situation, to such a radical extent.

¶95

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is a-llowed, and the impugned proceedings dated 23 032OO4 arc set aside. The respondents shall issue order of appointment, for the post of JPA, to the petitioner, in case any candidate, who has secured less number of marks, in the aggregate of marks in the I.T.I., standardized to 9oo/o, and the marks awarded in the interview against 107o; was appointed as JPA, in pursuance of the notification dated 02-02-1999. There shall be no order as to costs."

¶96

Aggrieved by order in W.P.No.39l of 2OO4, respondent authorities carried the matter in writ appeal. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal on 23.1t.2011. Pursuant to the dismissal of writ appeal, petitioner in W.P.No.391 of 2004 was issued proceedings. Petitioners contend that directions be issued considering the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.391 of 2OO4. lt was canvassed that petitioners were residing in remote villages/areas in the State and were not aware of subsequent developments. That their cases be considered on sympathetic grounds and beneflt be extended as directed in W.P.No.391 of 2004.

¶97

¶98

JAK,J \'.P.Nc 15975 of2015

I i I

I i l I { i

It is pcrl.nent to extract^{the relevant conten.s of the counter}

¶104

affidavit fi ed try respondent^{No 4. The foliowinga re the relevant}

¶105

paragraph i:

¶106

"10. h is submitted^{that the Petitioners. inthe} tresent^writ Peti ion are neither^{parties in W.P.No 23439 of 199') andbatch} nc,r in^(l C.No.110 of 2001^{and batch. Therefore,.hey ca:rnot} clair o ic,r appointment^{on par with the candidate ilvlto} 'r'ere app rintr:<l as^perthe direction^{of the Hon'b1eHigh Ccurt.A'i per} the lirec:ions of the^{Hon'bleHigh Court referredto above the} ben rht cl review of selections^{was limited onlyto Petitio lers,} whc u'<'re parties in W.P.No.23439^{of1999 &batchand} C.C No. ILO of 2001 & batch^{and none else. Sincethe} Pe:ti.ion,:r's are not^{parties in WritPetitionsor tt e contlrmpt} cas( s, they are not eligible^{for the postof JPAFurther, all the} pos s hirve been filled up in the^{cadreof JPA.}

¶107

1 . It is submitted that the Writ^{Petitionersnc /er agilated} al)o rt tir,rir rights^{subsequentto their interviewon 511 - I 999'} For the first time, they have^{approachedthis Hon rlcCor-Lrt in} the yea.. 2O15, The Petitioners have^{not explainedLhe deley or} lacl es. On this ground also,^{the writPetition is liirbleo be} disnissc 1."

¶108

In Aruind Kumar^{Sriaasto:aa(1 supra), thc Apex Courthcld}

¶109

as follorvs

¶110

22.^'l r: legal^{principles whichemerge from the r(ading( f the} albr esarc^judgments, cited^{bothby the appellants ai\'e11as thc} r€rsl )on( L(rn ts, can be summed up^{as under:}

¶111

- Normal rule is that^{when a particulan set of r:rrrp1o1'r,esis} givrn rr:lief by the Court, all other identically srtui.t€d^pe:sons neef to l)e treated alike by^{extendingthat benefit. lot doirlgso} $,o[ ld amount to discrirrination^{and would bc violatil/e of} Art cle l'+ of the Constitution^{of India.This principk needs to bc} ap1 lied in service matters^{moreemPhaticallyas thesc rvice} 3urispnr<lence^{evolvedby thisCourt from tirne totime} p,ls Lulatcs that all similarly situated^persons should^{be tr'rated} sim ilar11,. Therefore, the normal^{rule would be that n-erely} bec lus,: other similarly situated^{personsdid not Epproachthe} Co1 rt earlier, they are not^{to be treateddifferentlJ'.} 22. 2 Hcrvever, this principle is subject to u.el^recogrized exc )ptions in the form of laches^ard delays as^*'eUas acq uiescence. Those^persons who did not ctallenge thc

¶112

n--'

¶113

JAK,J W.P.N0.35975 of 2015

¶114

¶115

¶116

wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case'of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3 However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarty situated persons, v/hether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the auttrorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the beneht of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisry that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."

¶117

This Court is conscious of the fact that notihcation is issued in 1999 and petitioner(s) approached this Court in 2015 i.e., after 16 long years, that too seeking a prayer to extend the benefit granted in W.P.No.391 of 2OO4.It was submitted before this Court that 26 candidates were issued appointments pursuant to contempt case filed before this Court in W.P.No.494 of 2OO2 ar-d batch. That respondent authorities considered and i'3sued proceedings. It was submitted that if vacancies are available, petitioners be permitted to make a representation. On a query by this Court, whether vacancies are available, learned Senior

¶118

¶119

JAK,J rV.P.N r.359?5 of20l5

¶120

¶121

Counsel fc r r,: spondent^{authorities,on instructiors, stal.ed that no} vacancies are irvailable.

¶122

PeLi .ione rs approached^{after a iong delayc f16 r'ears'The} principle rf rl:lay and^{laches has set in, Hon'ble Apex Courtin} Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda^{Koley And Others2, consideringthe}

¶123

aspect o^{' r} [ela1 and^{lachesheld as follows:}

¶124

"11. For hling of a writ^{petition, there is no do'rbtthiLt no} fi-xec per od of limitation^{is prescribed. Howevel} ,^{whert the} exl rr rorcLinary^{jurisdiction of the writ court is invokcd, it} has -o be seen as to whether^{within a reasonablt: timc';ame} has oeen invoked and even^{submittlng of memc rialsv ould} not^'eriv: the dead cause^{of action or resurrec[ the tausc} of i ctiorl which has had^{anatural death. Insuch} circr Lmstmces on t1-e^{ground of delayand laches a1one,the} appr aJ or,rght to be dismissed^{or the applicant)ughtlo be} non suitr:d. If it is found that the^{writpetitronelis guilty of} dela r and laches, the High^{Court ought to rlismissthe} petrlion on that sole ground itself, in as^{muchas the writ} colu ts are not to indulge^{inpermittingsut:h ind:lent} litrgr mt t,r take advantage^{of his own wrong. It is trr-te that} ther l czurnot be any waiver^{of fundamentalrigt.t but} 'vhiie exr:r:isirg di.scretionarSr^{jurisdiction under Arti.t:le22t', tlre} Higt Cc,rrrt wrll have to necessarily^{take intocc nsidcration} thr: delay and laches on the^{part of the applicarrt in} Kuntar lDingal and others lt.^{Sta,teoJ W.B and oth.ers-'} (2OC9) ) SCC 768 has held to the following^effec -:

¶125

"€6.^\fue are unable to uphold the^{contention l[is no} d,'ubt Irue that there can^{be no waiverof fundament.l} ri;ht. But while exercising^{discretionar5rjurisdiction} u rdel Articles 32, 226,²²⁷ or^{136 of the ConsttlLtion,} t1 is^(burt takes into account^{certain factors and oneof} srrch considerations is^{delay and lacheson the partof} tl e aFplicant in approaching^{a writ court. It isu'el1} sr ttlel that power to issue^a writ^{is discretionary. Oneol} tl e g-ounds for refusing^reliefs under^Article 32^{ot' 226} or the^{,lonstitution} is that the^petitioner is^{guilty<,f dela-v} a rd lar:hes.

¶126

' lnr-ivil At,p.al \0..:027 of2024. date{J 8.04.2024

¶127

JAK,J W.P.No.35975 of 2015

¶128

¶129

¶130

If the petitioner wanta to invoke jurisdiction o[ a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : 119641 6 SCR 2611, Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 136 :⁽¹⁹⁹²¹ 2L ATC 675^; (1992) 2 SCR 9691 ). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110], Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 1851 and Rabindralath Bose v. Union of India [(1e70)^{1 scc84]).}

¶131

There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person cai approach a court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts -before the court depending on and var5ring from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose."

¶132

It is apposite to take note of the dicta laid down by this Court in Karnataka Power Corportion Ltd. and another v. K. Thangappan and another, 120061 4 SCC 322 whereunder it has been held that the High Court may refuse to exercise extraordinary^jurisdiction if there is negligence or omissions on the part of the applicant to assert his right. It has been further held thereunder:

¶133

"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to^be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of Lhe Constir ution. In an appropriate case the [jgh 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, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is^involved the matter is stiil within the disc.retion of the Court^as pointed out in Durgo Prqstwd v. ChteJ Controller of Imports and Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185 : AIR 1970^SC 769) . Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.

¶134

What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsag Petroleum Co. u. Prosper Annstrorug^Hurd

\ ,

JAK,J W.P N,r.i5975 of20l5

¶139

¶140

[(^{874) 5 PQ 221 | 22 WR 492) (PC at p. 23'))rt-as} a.1 pror,:d by this Court rn^{MoonMills Ltd. u. M.R lv[eher} [A^{iR1 )67 SC i45O]and. MallnrashtraSRIC.'Shn} B,thtt<ttt Regular Motor Seruice l(19691^{1 SCR 80{l ; AIR} 1! 69 lC 3291 . Sir Barnes^{had stated:}

¶141

"I orr, thc doctrine of laches in courts^{of equity is notan} arbitrrl or a technical doctrine.^{Whereitrvo rldbe} pl actic i11'y' unjust to give a remedy either becatse^the pi rtl' l.as, b5, his conduct done that^{wliichmight lairh'} bc regerded as equivalent to a^{waiverof it, or wltereb,'} hrs corlduct and neglect he has though^{perhaps not} $ rivtrtl that remedy, yet^put the other^{partl ina} si .ualion in which it would not be^{reasonableto placc} him il the remedy were afterwatds to be^{asserLed, in} ei.her ,rf these cases, lapse of time and^{delay ar: most} m aterirll. But in every case, if an^{argument agains: relief,} wrich otherwise would be^just, is founded^{uporr merc} dr 1a,v, that delay of course not amounting^{to a bar b]'} ar ry s.trtute of limitation, the^{validity of that (Lefence} must l)e tried upon principles substantially^eqttitable. T,,,o cilcumstances always imPortant in such^{cases are,} tle length of the delay and the nature^{of the acts done} ch rrin3 the interval which might^affect either^{pat tl' and} ci use it balance of^justice or injustice^{in taking theone} c( u.sr or the other, so far as it^relates to the^remed]."

¶142

B It riould be appropriate to note certain decisions^of tf is O()urt in which this aspect has^been dealt^{vith in} re lation to Article 32 of the Constitution. It is^atr'parent tt at \i,llat has been stated as^regards that article^\'ould al )plv a iortiori, to Arti.cle 226. [t^was observedⁱⁿ R tbina ranath Bose u.^tJnion of Indio 1197 O) I^S(rC 84^: A R l!70 SC 4701 that no relief can be^given to^the p( titiorrer who without any reasonable explt,nation alrproaches this Court under Article 32 after^{ino -dinate} drtay lt was stated that though Article 32 is tself^a grrararteed right, it does not follow from this thal it \a'as tl e irtsntion of the Constitution-makers that thiri Court slLould clisregard all principles and^grantrt lief in p, titir)ns filed after inordinate delay.

¶143

9 It !,as stated in State of M.P. u. Nandlal^{Jai sutctl} [(^{9E()) 4 SCC 566 : AIR 1987 SC 251]that the High} C)url in exercise of its discretion does nct o,<lirLarily ar sisl -he tardy and the indolent o; the acquiesc( nt and tI e lctrargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of tle l){ititioner and such delay is not satisllrctorily er pia r.ed, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant :elief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It u'as st lted that this rule is premised on a number of tactors. Tlte ll gh Court does not ordinarily permit a related r( sorl :o the extraordinary remedy because it is l:kely to ci use :onfusion and public inconvenience and bt ing,^jn

¶144

¶145

JAK,J W.P.No.35975 of 2015

¶146

its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. "

¶147

Reiterating the aspect of delay and laches would disentitle the discretionary relief being granted, this Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babt, (2074) 4 SCC l08 has held:

¶148

"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 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 scrutin2e 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 ald 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."

¶149

¶150

27 . Petitioners chose to hle a writ petition in the rnonth of November, 2015 seeking benefits be extended to them as directed in W.P.No.391 of 2OO4. It is adverted to in the counter affidavit that petitioners never agitated about their rights subsequent to interview on 05.11.1999. There is a delay of sixteen years in approaching the writ Court. Except stating that they are living in

¶151

i i I ,1

¶152

¶153

18 JAK,J W.l' N,r.35975 of 2015

¶154

¶155

remote c(,rnel of the State eking^{their livelilLood by way of} agriculttLr rl larour, nothing^{is stated for thede1ay,}

¶156

De lz y r.l:feats equity.^{The High Court,while exr:rcising its} extraordir.: ary power under^{Article226 of the Conl;titution of India,} in a gi,zen :1se can refuse to^{invoke the jurisdict.ion.The} petitionerr, hr:rein have not only approached^{this Courl- belatedly,} but hav,-' slept over their rights^{for a considerablept:riod. They} woke up f^'om deep slumber and are seeking^{the Ielief, rfter a long} de1ay. T'h is C)ourt is not inclined to invoke^{lhcdi scretionary} jurisdictio n rnder Article 226 of thre Constitution of In':lia, as this court hzrs to r ecessarily take^{into consideration tlte aspr:ctof delay} and lache; in lpproaching the Court.

¶157

29 . W:i I'r:tition is devoid of merits,^do :s^n(:twarrant interferen:e, is liable to be dismissed and accor,lingly^dismissed. No order' a s t,) costs.

¶158

Mir cellzrncous applications pending, if zLny, shall stand

¶159

closed

¶160

S])/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI I)EPUTY REGISTRAR '.. 1 //TRUE COPY// l- .-' .r^{SECT|ONOFFTCER}

¶161

To,

¶162