IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 W.A.No.1910 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).20704/2008, DATED 13/08/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:- -------------------------------------------- 1. K.G. PRASANNAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O GOPALAN UNNITHAN , B. 838 -P, SECURITY SECTION, TCC LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, R/A VALSALA MANDIRAM, PANNIVIZHA, ANADAPPALLY P.O. NEAR VALIYAKULAM, ADOOR. 2. MADHAVAN. M, S/O V.T. AMBU, B.NO.844 P, SECURITY SECTION, TCC LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, R/A MANVANAL HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O., PERUMPALLY WEST. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR SMT.G.AMBILI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERLA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PERSONAL MANAGER, TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD., P.B. NO. 4004, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., PIN 683 501. WA.No.1910 of 2008 -2- 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, REP. BY THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD., P.B. NO. 4004, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., PIN 683 501. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, KPSC, O/O KPSC, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. BASHEER M.B, S/O BEERAN M.A. B/NO. 839 P., SECURITY SECTION, T.C.C. LTD., MAVALA HOUSE, PRESANNAPURAM, CHOWARA P.O., ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R3 BY ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR. R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. ALEXANDER THOMAS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1910 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Petitioners in W.P.(C).No.20704 of 2008 are before us in this Writ Appeal, inter alia, calling in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 13.8.2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. (2) For the disposal of the Writ Appeal, we need to notice only the dates of appointments of the petitioners vis-a-vis the contesting respondent. (3) The first petitioner joined duty as a Security Guard in the respondent-establishment on 23.2.1989, the second petitioner joined duty on 13.10.1990 and the fifth respondent joined duty on 23.5.1989. (4) The respondent-establishment has confirmed the services of the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent on 23.12.1990, 13.4.1992 and 23.11.1990 respectively. (5) In the writ petition filed, the prayers sought for by the petitioners are - firstly, to quash the appointment of 5th respondent to the post of Security Guard made in the year 1989 and, secondly, for a direction W.A.No.1910/2008. - 2 - to respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the appointment of the 5th respondent in the post of Security Guard. (6) The dates are not in dispute. The appointments of the petitioners and the 5th respondent are also not in dispute. Petitioners and the 5th respondent were working as Security Guard in the respondent establishment. Nearly after 19 years from the date of appointment, the petitioners have chosen to approach this Court in the month of July, 2008. Keeping in view the settled legal position that stale claims will not be entertained by the Courts, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. It is the correctness or otherwise of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge that is called in question by the petitioners in this Writ Appeal. (7) Time and again the Courts have held that if there is delay and laches on the part of the person coming before this Court and if it is not properly explained, then this Court would not exercise its extra ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the petitioner and to grant reliefs. The reasoning for that sort of observation by the Courts is that delay and laches are fatal to a proceeding. (8) The learned Single Judge has kept that aspect of the matter in view and has also taken into consideration the delay of nearly 19 years from the date of appointment of the 5th respondent, for the first time, to question the correctness or otherwise of the appointment of the 5th W.A.No.1910/2008. - 3 - respondent as Security Guard. (9) Sri.T.Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has brought to our notice the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (3) & others [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and a decision of the apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur v. Om Prakash Dubey [(2007) 1 SCC 373]. In the aforesaid decisions, the Supreme Court has only stated that if an appointment made is irregular or illegal, then the party concerned cannot seek for regularisation of their services. In the Om Prakash Dubey's case (supra), the Supreme Court has said, that, if an appointment is made and the appointee has continuously worked for more than ten years, then it would not be proper for the respondents not to regularise his services. (10) In our view, none of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants has any bearing on the issue involved in this Writ Appeal. (11) As we have already noticed, the appointment of the 5th respondent was in the year 1989. The appellants/petitioners were fully aware of the appointment of the 5th respondent. In spite of that, they came before this Court only in July, 2008, seeking to quash the appointment of the 5th respondent. As we have already stated, delay and laches on the part of the appellants/petitioners in approaching this Court is fatal to the W.A.No.1910/2008. - 4 - proceedings. Therefore, while confirming the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, we reject the Writ Appeal without reference to the respondents. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge