M.D. Shrivastava vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard on admission.

The appellant/petitioner challenges the validity of order dated 12-11-2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6297/2008, whereby, his writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

The appellant was appointed as Upper Division Teacher on 9th october, 1961. The gradation list was published on 1-4-1996 but name of the appellant was not mentioned in the gradation list. According to the appellant, this was a mistake on the part of the State Authorities, due to which he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Principal which was done vide order dated 1-1-1999. The second promotion list was also published on 7-4-1999, but, his case was not considered at the time of second promotion also on account of non-mentioning of his name in the seniority list which was again a mistake on the part of the respondents. The appellant preferred a representation for redressal of his grievance on 28-1-1999 and thereafter he made many representations but they were not responded and ultimately the appellant retired on 31st July, 2002. After retirement, the appellant again made representation and when nothing was done till the month of October, 2008, he filed W.P. (S) No. 6297/2008.

Learned Single Judge observed that since the year 1999 till the date of retirement on 31st July, 2002, the appellant did not filed any petition and even after the retirement in the year 2002, he filed the instant petition in the month of October, 2008, therefore, there was inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and the petition was liable to be dismissed on this count. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant was making repeated representations and he was waiting for a favourable reply but the respondents did not consider the representations and the time elapsed in the aforesaid manner.

In State of Orissa Vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray and Others, the Apex Court, relying on the decision rendered in the matter of Rabindranath Bose and Others Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, , held that on rejection of the representation of the petitioner against his supersession by his junior in select list, the appellant/petitioner held some eleven years to go by before filing the writ petition for quashing that list and in that situation, the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. The Apex Court further held that making of repeated representation after rejection of one representation cannot be said to be a satisfactory explanation of delay.

In State of Orissa Vs. Pyarimohan Samantaray and Others, , the petition by the Government servant, challenging seniority list was filed after 11 years of rejection of his representation and no satisfactory explanation for the delay was given. The Apex Court held that making of repeated representations, after the rejection of one representation could not be held to be a satisfactory explanation of the delay, therefore, the High Court should have rejected the petition on this preliminary ground.

In Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. S.S. Kothiyal and Others, , the respondent was denied promotion as Deputy Commandant in 1970 and again in 1971, but was promoted in the year 1972. He was further promoted as Commandant in 1975. His three representations against his non-promotion as Deputy Commandant were rejected respectively in June, 1971, November, 1974 and July, 1977. The writ petition was filed in the High Court in the year 1978. The Apex Court held that the writ petition was highly belated, and therefore, the High Court should not have entertained the petition.

In the present case, according to the appellant, he was denied first promotion on 1-1-1999 and again was not considered on 7-4-1999. Therefore, the cause of action arose in favour of the appellant in the year 1999. The appellant made many representations till he retired on 31st July, 2002. In this period, the appellant did not initiate any legal action. liven after the retirement, he again preferred representations and ultimately, this writ petition was filed in the year 2008. Therefore, the action of the appellant was highly belated and making repeated representations by the appellant after arising of the cause of action in the year 1999, would not explain the delay in filing the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has rightly held that there was inordinate delay and the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

For the foregoing discussions, we do not find any force in this appeal.

The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself.