.Q> BBF0RE 1'HE M.P. STATE AEKISISTRA'EIVB TRIWHAL BEHGH AT ; (x^^^^So^/^: BAJPUB. ._/1999 O.A. R0. APPLieMT: , ^ Metad. Kazaa Ali-S/o S.M»,-AltR/8 KasaBaIaBistrietDgrgCH.E'.'). . , V/s ' ' : • • . 11 1. . State o£ M.P.. ttaroagh tlie Seere'tary, ©OV't.rOf M.P. , . • - • SeMool Bdueatl.oB Depar't&eBt, Mantral;aya| Bh&pal. 2. CaaaisstoBer, PaBli.e iBstruction, Bhapal. 3. Ms'brie-t Edacattps Otii.eeE, - Durg (B.p.). , ' . ~- ^gELIgATia!^WBE&..SEe2I@i_:1.t QS'.2HB ABK®1SIBA.^W@1/ 1 ffi^^?^^:!i^'; KR'1:, '"' w^-K.t HIGWCeBRTOE^HA'TB-iSQARHiBtI.ASPUR Sinole Bencii; Hon^bfeShrl nilaninllrffHffiohatnSlii'Nastava,*!- PETITlQNcR SESTONDENTS ^WRiTREtlTiONfS^ N0.2809/2668 Mohd. Kazam Aii Vwsus • :; . StateofMadfiyaPFadeShand2otiiere lli!!1liilil! iiiiai iHi'^H \w nii1 Present:-'^^ShnN.Ansai^$<?unse!^F!the.,RetiSionerB'l:.'^ 5h^BhasKaSPayasi,Panell.a^^^foF^Stete/respondenfs. ORALORDER • : ' :: :11:' ':•.''" (Passed^ri21stAprM, 2010) This peUtion has been flied by the petitionerclaiming reguiarisation of 'servlces.;..:'.:;'-.- :.:'::'':;;1' :;:1 -•: ::. . :. • ; ' ::'; • : ; 1: 2; Briefly stated, the facts <»fthe case' are ^at IKe p^ioher w^ aDpointed as Lower Division Teachier vicle order sdated S'Q%1881 on daiiy wage basis @ R&S^.ithasbeenstateabyiBe^^QneFWatWewasappiMntediafte 1 seiec^on-thattheteiimofappoiintnwntw^tem j corrtinuedfoFaperiod of3 months. Ryrthercase jsthattHepetit^ 1 theschooi and maderepreser^ionfflrFegi^risafiohofhisservJ^bwT^^^ -:r waspasSed.:, ..' • , .'. ,' • ' ' '. •. • '. "': ':' :. : •: .: 1 3£^ Submjsston oflearned (»ynseiforthe petjWneristhatft^^^^^ ij appointed as Lower DMsion Teachw after l^ular s^ H were Ijable to be rsgulansed. , ft is^ aiso ;^tied?tR^ 'lA^6.4S6^aridO.A.NQ.624^8issUeddir^6hf6K<^siderati<mc^casesfo "•^il:l^:-llt/ re9Ui8TisatiQn6fsjrra!arlysJtuatedemployeesyide;oniere(A^ i 3),f6i!OTred?fc^simiiarvie\ftttaken^bylffie^^natW©^M ..•-'1'' rr'""^" l :;-^c' .<<»! 4), petitioner vvas aiso entitied for issuance of direction for reguiarisation in sewice. 4. On the other hand, submission of iearned counsei for respondents is that the inst-ant petition is hopeiessiy barred by the inordinate deiay and iaches on the part of petitioner. it is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on a'aiiy wage basis oniy for a period of 3 months or untii further orders whichever is eariier. After 3 y'ears, ihe services of the petitioner were not continued and carne to an snd. This petition has been flieu after 18 years. it is further argued that the petitioner is not entitied for any direction for reguiarisation on the basis of order passed by the Tribunai in various cases, in vjew or judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretarv. State of Kamaiaka Vs. yrnaJSevj^ 2006 {4} SCC oaae 1. Official LiauJQ'ator Vs. Davanand and others 2008 (10) SCC oaue 1 and Government of A.P. Vs. K.Bramhanandan AiR 2008 S.C,3170 in as much as petitioner has faiied to estabiish that whiie rnaking appointment on the basis of Lower Division Teacher, procedure prescribeu under statutory ruies was foiiowed which is c-1ear frorn the fact that the appointment of the petitioner ivas on dally v/age basis oniy for a period of 3 months which carne to an end by affiux OT tim®. o. Fetitioner has not refuted avermente made in the retum to the effect that the petitioner was appointed oniy for a period of 3 monihs on daiiy wage basis and after expiry of the said period his services came to an end. it is thus ciear that the petitioner did not tate recourse of any remedy that rnight have been avaiiabie to him in the year 1981-82 and fiied instant petition berore the Tribunai in the year 1998 i.e. after aimost 18 years. it appears that in view of certain orders passed by the Tribunai directing reguiarisation in certain cases. petitioner <:^ ^ j -:y flled this petition. There is no materiai on record to show that petitioner had taken any steps what so ever after 1981-82 before fiiing instant petition in the •»^\e\f\ year 'iyyo. 6. In the c-ase of Uttaranchal Forest Developnwnt Coipn. And another vs. JabarSingh anu others, (2007) 2 SCC 112, it was observed as under: 43. The termination order was made in the year 1985 and Uie writ petitions were admittediy fiied in the year 2005 after a de!ay of 10 years. The High Court, in our opinion, was not justffied in entsrtalrs^ng ths writ petition ors She groiand that the pstitlon hss been fiied after a deiay of 10 years and that ine v/rii petitions should have been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of taches. 7. Further, in the case of New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others,{2007) 9 SCC 278, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles relating to interference in cases where petitioner approached the Court with unexpiained deiay as beiovv: 16. There is another asDect of the rnatter which cannot be iost sight of. The respondents herein fiied a writ petition aner 17 years. They did not agitate their arievancss for a lona tims- Thev, as noticed hsrein, did not ciai'?' parity with the 17 workmen at tiie sarilsst possib'e opportuniry". They did not irnptead fhemseives as parties even in the reference made by the State before the industrial Tribuna!. It is not their case that after 1982, those emptoyees who were eniployed or who were rscrultsd after the cut-off date havs besn grantsd ths said scaie of psy. Aftsr sueh a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similariy situated. It is trite that the discretjonary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a tong time. Delay and 'aches are relevant factors for exercise uf equttab!e jurisdiction. (Sae Goyt. of Vv'.B. v. Tarun K. Roy2, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jasvv'ant Sing and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappani.) 8. in the case of P. S. Sauasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1S76) 1 SCC 152, it has been heid as under:- it is not that there is any" period of limitatlon for the Courts to exsrcise thelr oowers undsr Articie 226 nor is it that thers can never be a cass where the Courts cannot interfere in s matter after the passage of a certain iength of time. But it wouid be a ri; 'S'SWs^SSSS^ sound and wise exereise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for retief and who stand by and aiiow things So happen and the." approach the Court to put forward staie ciaims and try to unsettle settled mattars. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in Hmirte. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time ofthe Court. It clogs the vvork of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as ateo its normal work. We eonsider that the High Court was right in dismlssing the appeiiant's petition as weii as the appeai." 9. in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of tndia, (1992) 3 SCC 136, It was heiu as under: S. There is another asoect of the m-atter. inordinate and unoqslained delay or iaches 's by itself a ground to refuss rdief to t'ne petiiioner, irrespective of the merit of his ciaim. if a psrson entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonabie beiief in the mind of others that he is not interested in ciaiming that reiief. Others are then justified in actina on that belief. This is mors so in sen/ice matters where vacancies are required to be fiiied promptSy. A person cannot be permttted to chailenge the termination of his service after a period of t'A'enfry'-t'A'o years, without any cogent explanaticn for the inordinate delay, merely because others similariy dismissed had been reinstated as a result of their eartier DStitlons being ailowed. 10. In view of the above settied iegai position, i am of the view that the instant petinon is iiabie to be dismissed on the ground of deiay and iaches more so as the petitioner was a daiiy wage empioyee. in view of the Saw cited by the Supreme Court in the case of Urna Devi (Supra) ciairn for reguiarisatlori is not sustainabie in Sa'w. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Ma»i"^a^Te; Shrxvastava 3udg a