CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8817 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 03, 2010 Sukhwinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Y. P. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition with a grievance that Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai, District Sonepat, has made several appointments of Masters, including respondent Nos.3 to 5 without issuing any advertisement, thus, depriving all the eligible persons like the petitioner a chance to get a Government employment. The petitioner, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8817 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: thus, prays for quashing the order passed by the Principal pursuant to the direction issued by this Court to decide the legal notice served by the petitioner, which has been rejected. As per the petitioner, one person closed to him has told that he had filed a complaint regarding the appointments made in the school and had also sought information under the R.T.I Act. It is claimed that the documents so supplied would disclose that the appointments as made are illegal. In the list of documents is also the advice of Legal Remembrancer. The petitioner accordingly pleads that it is not a case of mere irregularity but a case where undue advantage has been given to certain persons at the cost of various eligible persons, thus, would reveal violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The facts, as pleaded, show that one post of Master (English) was advertised and one candidate was selected. Three persons were kept on waiting list. All the posts ought to have been advertised but still the persons shown in the waiting list were appointed. The petitioner served a legal notice on 9.9.2008, on which no action was taken. The petitioner had then filed a Civil Writ Petition No.21704 of 2008, which was disposed of on 24.12.2008 with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision by passing a speaking order. Respondents have, thus, passed an order on 14.2.2009 (Annexure P-9/A), rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition to urge that these orders are illegal and arbitrary. In response to notice of motion, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. A perusal of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8817 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: reply would show that a vacancy was advertised for one post of Master (Junior Wing). Selection Committee held its meeting on 3.10.1997 and kept three names in the waiting list. One Archana Batra was selected and offered the post. The Government had created two posts of leave reserve on 23.1.1998. One post of Master (General Studies) was upgraded. Smt.Bharti Bakshi and Smt.Sunita Mann were offered the posts of Teachers on consolidated salary on 89 days after holding their interview on 3.10.1997 and they worked as such till they were appointed on regular basis. Reference is made to a complaint whereby one B.C.Verma, Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, was directed to conduct an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer declared the appointment made to be in violation of the rules. The advice of the L.R was also to the effect that the action in selecting candidates from the waiting list was wrong and all these posts should have been advertised. The Government had accordingly directed Principal to issue show cause notice to Rajesh Babu Sharma, Ms.Sunita Mann and Ms.Bharti Bakshi. Against these notices, the persons affected had filed Civil Writ Petition Nos.6872, 6874 and 6876 of 2005. This Court had passed the following order on 5.5.2005 while disposing of the said writ petition :- “The writ petition is directed against a show cause notice. However, the petitioner has been working for almost 7 years in the institution, we deem it proper to protect his/her interest as well. We accordingly dispose off this writ petition with a direction to the respondents, that should they decide to terminate the services of the petitioner, the order shall be kept in abeyance for 15 days CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8817 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: so that the petitioner may avail of her legal remedies.: After receipt of the order passed by the High Court, the Government had taken a sympathetic view and allowed these Teachers to continue. Decision was taken to initiate a disciplinary action against the persons who had made these appointments but later the proceedings were dropped by the then Commissioner and Secretary, Sports & Youth Affairs, on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. A separate written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is stated that the writ petition is highly belated. It is pointed out that the answering respondents were appointed on regular basis way back in 1998 and so it would be unwise to exercise jurisdiction or extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after such a long lapse of time. It is stated that number of posts of Master were advertised from 1997 onwards and the petitioner never applied for any such post. The petitioner is statedly working as D.P.E., which is equivalent to Master in scale. It is, thus, urged that he has no interest and the petitioner has never bothered to apply for the post of Master. The facts, as pleaded, would also show that the post of Master was advertised in the School on 12.5.1997 and the interview was held on 3.10.1997. Two posts of Master (Junior Wing) Stood approved by the special Board even prior to the interview and one post of Master was upgraded w.e.f. 26.1.1998. As per the instructions then prevailing, the waiting list was to remain in operation for six months and post available within this period could be filled up from the same very selection list. In this background, the counsel for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8817 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: the respondents would plead that the appointment made from waiting list can not be termed bad and so the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner refers to the case of Ajay Siwach Vs. State of Haryana, 1996 (4) SLR 777, where it is held that the waiting list is not to be used as a source of recruitment and the waiting list not to be used for the vacancy unless it is advertised and the selection held for such post. Counsel would also refer to the case of Jitendra Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2008 (1) RSJ 739, where it is viewed that no appointment can be made beyond the number of posts advertised or against the posts, which are not advertised. Mr.R.K.Malik, on the other hand, would refer to P.S.Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1976 (1) SLR 53 to say that the writ petition is filed with delay and latches and the discretion to exercise jurisdiction in such cases is to be refused if writ is not filed expeditiously. As observed in this case, normally, writ should be filed within six months or atleast in a year. No doubt, there is some substance in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner but two things in this case apparently would stand out. The appointments concededly were made in the year 1998 and the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same firstly in 2008 and thereafter through present writ petition in May 2009. There has been, thus, unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in making the approach. The result of this delay is that respondent Nos.3 to 5 have continued to serve for almost 12 years by now. Should a writ petition be entertained after CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8817 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: such a lapse of time, thus, would be a major consideration weighing with the Court. Another equally important aspect of the case is that the petitioner apparently does not have any locus to file this petition. The petitioner was never an aspirant for the post and had never applied for the same. The record shows that he is working as D.P.E and may not be having any interest for this appointment, for which he had never applied. Would he, thus, have locus at this belated stage to challenge the appointments? The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S.Sadasivaswamy's case (supra), would be significant. A person aggrieved by an order has to approach the Court within a reasonable time. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Court to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution, but as observed by the Supreme Court, it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of a person who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to stake a claim and to unsettle the settled matters. The petitioner was not an aspirant and now is seeking to unsettle the settled claims. The cause for interference, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, thus, is not made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 03, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE