^ [o^ HIGH CQURT OF CHRA.TTISG AT BILASPUR WritPetitionfS)No. 1403 of 2009 Petitioner : Ashok Kumar Pandey, son of late Bhagwati Prasad Pandey, aged about 48 years, presently working as Principal In charge at Govt. High School Sector-7, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Respondents : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, School Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Assistant Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) fSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri, J.) Present : Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17th day ofMarch, 2009) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of order dated 15.05.1997 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Director, Public Instruction, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, whereby promotion ofthe petitioner to the post of Lecturer (English) has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has obtained his M.A. English certificate from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow (UP), which is not recognized. 3. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher by order dated 05.03.1987 (Annexure P/2). He was promoted as Lecturer (English) by order dated 30.08.1996 (Annexure P/6) afiter completion of his Post Graduation. Subsequently, by impugned order 15.05.1997 (Annexure P/l) promotion of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the he has not done his post graduation in English from recognized university. Thereafter, the petitioner has completed his post graduation from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, which is a recognized university, in the year 1998., and thereafiter, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer (English) by order dated 01.09.1998 (Annexure P/7) andjoined on 22.09.1998 at the new place of posting. The seniority of the petitioner was counted from 22.09.1998, accordingly. 4. . Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the University Grant Commission, vide its letter dated 24.10.2005 (Annexure P/8), informed that the name of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, has been deleted from the list of fake universities, and since the petitioner has done his post graduation from the aforementioned university in the year 1991-92, therefore, the seniority ofthe petitioner ought to have been counted w.e.f. 30.08.1996 with all consequential benefits. 5. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6099/2008 raising same issue, which was dismissed on 07.11.2008 (Annexure P/11), holding that, the instant petition, filed by the petitioner afiter more than ten years when his promotion was cancelled in the year 1997, is liable for dismissal on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence. Thereafiter, the petitioner filed a writ appeal before 8. the Division Bench ofthis Court also being W.A. No. 02/2009, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file writ petition challenging the order dated 15.05.1997, ifso advised. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties.perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The petitioner has slept over his rights since 1997 till the filing ofthis petition. Even otherwise, the petitioner does not deserve sympathy as the petitioner has already waived his right of seeking appropriate remedy under the provisions of law. The laches and delay in approaching this Court has not been explained by the petitioner. The law on the principle of waiver and acquiescence is well settled that, if the petitioner sleeps over his rights ad is not vigilant of his rights and acquiescence with the situation, he may not be entitled to the same relief as was granted to other vigilant persons/employees. On laches and delay in agitating the grievances before the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and another vs. Balkaran Singh1 obseryed as under: "22. According to us, the suit is also barred by acquiescence and estoppel. No one in a service can sleep over the question of seniority for more than 12 years and then come to court seeking a relief which will upset the seniority of a number of persons who had been shown as seniors in the respective seniority lists. Therefore, on the face of it, a declaratory relief that will have the effect of altering a twelve-year-old and a nine-year-old seniority list could not have been granted by the courts below." The Supreme Court in the matter of . U.P. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jashwant Singh and another , observed as under: "6. The question of delay and latches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise 1 (2006) 12 SCC 709 2(2006)11SCC464 of the discretionary relief under Article 226. of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his right and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. ..." 9. This petition has been filed without any explanation or justification for unexplained delay. 10. The petitioner impugns the order dated 15-5-1997 whereby the promotion of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained the Post Gradation Degree in English from a recognized University. The petitioner relies on a letter dated 24-10-2005 (Annexure - P/8) whereby the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow was deleted from the list of fake Universities of the UGC website. If Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, was deleted from the list offake Universities ofthe UGC website w.e.f. 24-10-2005 it does not validate non-recognition ofthe University. 11. At fhe most afiter October, 2005 Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, may be treated as registered institution, but prior to that the status ofthe Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, remains the same i.e. un-registered institution/University. The petitioner has obtained M.A. Degree in English initially from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow much before the letter dated 24-10-2005 issued by the UGC. The situation does not improve. The Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow remains un-registered till October, 2005. The petitioner was rightly granted promotion by order dated 1-9-1998 when he obtained the Post Graduation Degree in English from the Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur. There is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the respondent authorities. The contention of the petitioner Sahu that the petitioner should be granted seniority from the back date on the basis of Post Graduation Degree obtained from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, is not sustainable in law. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in the case, the same suffers from unexplained delay & laches and deser^es to be and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Consequently, pending applications, ifany, stand disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge