THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP No. 3962 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition projects a pathetic story of a young person who was nearly successful in his attempt to get employed with the prestigious Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, since re-named as `Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited’. For establishing the steel plant, at Viskhapatnam, large tracks of land have been acquired by the State compulsorily. The State Government apart from ordering for payment of market value as compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the lands also came up with a rehabilitation package so as to secure employment either to the land loser or his dependant in the steel plant. For regulating this entire exercise, a sub-employment exchange has also been opened up at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. The eligible land losers have all been identified and they were all furnished with rehabilitation cards (R-cards). As and when Visakhapatnam Steel Plant was undertaking recruitment drive, a certain percentage of vacancies were thrown open for recruitment from the source of rehabilitation card holders. In that process, the writ petitioner herein has undergone the selection process to the post of `Assistant Technician’. He has come through the written test followed by viva voce . The Visakhpatnam Steel Project through its communication No. PL.NER.9(23), dated 12th Jan 1988 informed the writ petitioner that he was selected for appointment as `Assistant Technician Trainee’ and the said offer of appointment was subject to his fitness on medical examination ether by the company’s doctor or a medical officer authorized by the said company. The detailed conditions and terms subject to which the said offer of appointment has been made, have all been listed out, with which we are not so much concerned now. It appears that the writ petitioner has also subjected himself for medical examination at the company’s hospital sometime immediately after 12.1.1988. But, however, on the plea that he has not heard anything thereafter from the Steel plant, he has filed the present writ petition. This writ petition has been instituted on 25.2.1999, more than 11 years after the selection process has culminated in an offer of appointment as an `Assistant Technician’ is made to him. It would be worth noticing the pleadings as set up by the writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition. “3. ….. I have called for interview for the post of Assistant Technician Trainee in Visakhapatnam Steel Project. Later I have received a letter dated 12.1.1988 intimating me that I have been selected for appointment as ASSISTANT TECHNICIAN TRAINEE in Visakhapatnam Steel Project. But I have not been appointed. I do not know what is the reasons for not appoint me in the said post. I have been anxiously waiting for consideration by the respondent for any suitable post. I have made personal enquiries in the office of the respondent organization and requested for providing another opportunity to me for my selection. All others have been appointed and very few were left over including myself.” The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In paragraph 18(B) of the said counter affidavit, this is what has been stated: “18(B) ….. it is submitted that the petitioner had qualified in the written test, interview subsequently held in November 1987 for the post of Assistant Technician Trainee and hence he was intimated to appear for Medical Examination. However from the records it is seen that he did not join VSP. The possibilities are that he must have remained absent and not appeared for Medical Examination or he must have been declared medically unfit. Since this pertains to the year 1987-88 and as a result of lapse of so much of time, we are not able to locate the records pertaining to his medical examination.” From the above pleadings what emerges is this: The writ petitioner was selected and must have appeared for medical examination as was directed in the offer of appointment or he would have avoided appearing for such an examination. If he was examined and then found unfit by the Medical Board, it is up to him to question the correctness or otherwise of the findings of the Medical Board. On the other hand, if he was found fit, but yet the terms of offer of appointment were not much encouraging to him at that stage, that he may not have chosen to join the service of the Visakhapatnam Steel Project. In either case, the steel project cannot be blamed or faulted. In the event of the writ petitioner was found to be not fit, unless such a finding is validly challenged, the petitioner cannot have a grievance. In the next alternative, it is his choice not to join the service and hence he cannot make out an issue. Normally, a period of three years is considered to be a reasonable and fair period for any aggrieved citizen to ventilate his grievances with regard to the public law domain, notwithstanding the fact that there is no specified or prescribed period of limitation for instituting a writ petition either in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts. But, however, as a matter of prudence, courts have been adopting a standard of testing the veracity of the actions of public authorities, whenever and wherever writ petitions are instituted within a reasonable period of time. Instances are not lacking where courts have entertained the writ petitions even after several years have lapsed from the time the cause of action arose. But, such instances are more a rarity than a common feature. Delay on the part of the petitioner by itself may not defeat his rights, but yet when the delay causes a grave prejudice to the opposite party to contest a case effectively, in such circumstances, the delay perhaps can be put against the petitioner. Eleven (11) years is too long a period for a writ petition to be entertained, particularly relating to public employment. No person can be heard to say that he was coolly waiting for a decade period to know the result of the selection process. The red hot ambers could die down with such long delays and the fire cannot be rekindled in such circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the relief sought for by the petitioner is different and that the petitioner is not making a serious issue of his selection earlier. This contention is equally devoid of any merit. As and when a recruitment drive is initiated by the respondent a sizable number of posts are set apart for recruitment of R-card holders. Certain relaxed standards are also employed in the matter of selection of such candidates, in particular with regard to upper age limit, in comparison to the candidates drawn from the open market for such or similar class of posts. He is now aged about 50 years and hence he cannot claim to be still employable with the respondent. However, before I part with this case, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondent – Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, being a State instrumentality, to communicate preferably by way of registered post to every applicant who has been subjected to medical examination all the findings, wherever and whenever the said medical examination has resulted in an adverse report being filed against the said individual disentitling him from getting appointed. The respondent – steel plant is held to be a public institution answering the description of `State’ in terms of Article 12 of our Constitution. Therefore, it has to act fairly and reasonably in the matter of its employment. Whenever, the Medical Board has adversely reported against a candidate, the findings of the said Medical Board must be communicated to him with necessary details thereof. It will serve two purposes: (1) If the candidate is truly ineligible, not being in a fit position for public employment, he will have an immediate opportunity to get medically attended to. (2) In case, he is confident of challenging the correctness of the findings of the Medical Board, he would be able to do so by taking recourse to appropriate measures. He cannot be denied either of these benefits. In case, the candidate is able to test the veracity and correctness of the findings of his medical fitness, the prospects of his employability would get increased. Therefore, the respondent cannot deny such a benefit or advantage to the applicants. Henceforth, the respondent will communicate the findings of the Medical Board/Medical Examination to every such candidate against whom an adverse report has been filed, without fail. All because of the inordinate and unexplained delay of eleven (11) years after the process of selection has reached a stage of culmination, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The writ petitioner cannot seek for consideration of his case on subsequent occasions, without in any way seeking to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the findings of the Medical Board. Similarly, if he has already been considered once under the quota of displaced persons, and selected but declined the offer, later on he cannot insist that his case should be considered once more, particularly when large number of displaced persons yet did not get one opportunity at least of being considered for employment in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 15th June 2010 LR Copy to be marked (b/o) knk