If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction – Karnataka High Court.
In case of writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to grant service weightage for the service rendered as contract principal is in conflict. And in consequence direct the respondents consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appointment such an issue was decided in the judgement of MR DEVARAJU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA (WRP-30379/2018 (S-RES) decided by the single bench of MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI
In this case the issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant service weightage for the service rendered between 01.08.2008 to 16.03.2011 as contract principal. In consequence direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appoint him to the post of principal in any of Morarji Desai residential school.
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, Petitioner has not pointed out any executive order or statutory rule which provides for giving weightage for rendering service on contract basis against a principal post. In the absence of legal or statutory right, petitioner is not entitled for a writ of mandamus to claim weightage for the service rendered on contract basis. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS. R. K. ZALPURI & ORS(AIR 2016 SC 3006), held under what circumstances the writ petition filed under Article 226 can be entertained, if there is a delay and latches which reads as under, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The learned counsel for the respondent contended that, in this regard reference to a passage from MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR VS. K. THANGAPPAN AND ANR would be apposite:- “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 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, causes prejudice to the opposite party”.
After recording the statements and hearing the averments of both the parties the Hon’ble Court stated that “The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary 6 remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay. 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. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.”
Judgement reviewed by Pratikshya Pattnaik