It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”- High Court of Delhi.
Under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Repeated representations by the petitioner would not extend the time period to file writ petition as upheld by the High Court of Delhi through the learned single bench led by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN in the case of RAJESH SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (W.P(C) 12682/2021 & C.M.No.39947/2021).
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected by the Service Selection Commission (Central Area), Allahabad, through common examination conducted for Constable (GD) Examination 2011, for CRPF, BSF, and CISF & SSB. It is stated that the Petitioner had submitted all his documents with the respondents on 12 February, 2015 “Candidate Not reported” was mentioned before the Petitioner’s name. The Petitioner had not received any call letter or instructions requiring him to report the October, 2016 well before the last date of submission i.e., 30th December, 2016. It is stated that despite completing all the formalities as required by the Respondents, the Petitioner was not selected for the post.
The Petitioner had addressed various letters and representation to the Respondents enquiring about the status of his employment enquiring about the status to which there was no response. However, vide letter dated 29th October, 2020 while replying to the representation of the petitioner, the respondents had informed the petitioner that his dossier has not been received till date.
Keeping an account of the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, the Hon’ble Court held, “This Court is of the view that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the examination and selection procedure conducted from 2011 to 2015, he should have approached the High Court in 2015 itself when the Petitioner did not receive any intimation from the Respondents regarding his appointment or at least within a reasonable time i.e., from 12 October, 2016 – when the petitioner despite submitting his documents had not received any response. Grant of any relief, as prayed for, at this stage to the petitioner would have an adverse effect down the chain and the seniority of a large number of officers in SSB would be adversely affected. It has also been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that repeated representations by the petitioner would not extend the time period to file the writ petition. Consequently, the present writ petition along with pending application is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.”
Judgement reviewed by Pratikshya Pattnaik