BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH \: <i'' ATBILASPURrC.G.) •d WRITPETITIONNo3t^S' /2006 SINGL? BEMCH PETITIONER Ram Bhajan Patel, son of Shri Paratfa Ram Patel, aged about 62 ./'( ^, f^fry years, F'rincipal, Government '^••^^' .•••''''* ^18^1er Secondary School, -?^'.fS^"' ..•• Sondlea, Block Kharsia, Raigarh ^•••^^?' (Chhattisgarh) i^ VERSUS . *°*• RESPONDENTS ^ ^ 2. ^'•y' ^ 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Secretary, Department of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development, Dau Kalyan Smgh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Commissioner, Departaient of Scheduled Caste and Schedufed Tribes, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Commissioner, , Department of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Raigarh (Cbhattisgarh) The CoUector, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Ramashankar Singh, through - ^ The Commissioner, Department of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 6. N.K. Sharma, through - The Commissioner, Department of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT_PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^ ---s' Petitioaer Respondeats Ram Bbajan Patel Vs. State of ChhattisgaTh & others Siagle Bench : Hon'ble Shrl Satish Kuniar Agnihotri, J. ?T: - ShriB.D. Gmn, Sint. Anju Ahuja for fhe petitioner. Govt. Advocate for the State. fPassed on 30-10-2006) The petitioner was iuitially appointed on fhe post of Upper Division Teacher on 7.3.1968 in. the Tribal Welfare Department. According to ffae petition.er, respondents No. 5 aiid 6, who were appointed as Upper Division Teachers subsequentiy on 9.12.1968 and 18.12.1969 respectively, got pl'om.otion to fhe post of Lecturers on 21.9.1984. The Gradation List was accordingly published on 15.7.1994 as on 1.4.1994 (Aiuiexurc P-1) wherein fh.e date of birth of the petitioner was showu as 8.5.1934 aad fhe actual date ofbirtli of the petitioner is 25.7.1944. The petitioner submitted representation for correction ofhis date ofbirth on 16.8.1995 (Annexure P-2). One inore representation was sent on 2.11.1995 (Aanexure P-3). No decBion was taken on the said representations. According to fhe petiti.on.er, respondents No. 5 aiid 6, who were appoiated as Upper Division Teachers subsequenfly, got prom.oted on the post oflecturers before fhe w petitioner aad they were further proinoted on the post of Principal by order dated 28.2.1994 aad 16.9.1995 on the basis of fhe gradation Ust. The petitioaer was pronioted ultunately on 31.7.2000 on the post of Principal. The petitioner has filed fhis petition after a period of six years oa 27.6.2006 seeking a relief of direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 for correction of fhe gradation list aad for further graat of proiaotion to (he petitiouer froin fhe date when the persons junior to Mm liave been granted prom.otion ivith aU consequential benefits. 2. This petition has been filed after a long inordinate and unexplaiaed delay of six years. The petitioner has not been able to produce or subinit aay reason for condonation of such a long delay in fiting fhis petition. 3. It is well setUed fhat High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist fhe tardy aiid the iridolent or the acquiescent aud the lethai^ic as fhe belated approach inay have the effect of iiiflictiiig not only hardship as iiiconvenience but also iujustice on fhird parties. The Supreine Court in Jagdish Naraia M.altias of Bihar SE others1 observed as under: "Thus it was m August, 1963 that appeUaiit discovered that his services were reaily detenniiied for gross inisconduct. For 'AIR 1973 SC 1343 5. nearly 3 years fhereafter he kept on submitting one laeDiorajiduiii after anofher to the Govenuneiit aad it was not until late ui 1966 that he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court to challenge the order of Temoval. The ineiiiorials presented by him to the Govemmeiit were in fhe liature of inercy petitions aad he should have realized fhat in pursuing a remedy whlch was not duly appointed uiider the law Iie was putting iu peril a right of high value and sigiufica&ce. By his conduct he disabled tb.e High Court froin exercisiag its extraordinary powers in. his favour. We are fherefore of the opinion fhat fhe High Court was justified ia refusiiig to entertaai fhe petition." The Supreme Court m. P.S. Sadasivaswaiay of Tamil Nadu2observed as under: "It is not fh.at fhere is aay period of lunitation for the Courts to exercise theu- powers under Article 226, nor is it that fhere caa never be a case wliere fhe Courts caoiiot iaterfere iu a luatter after the passage of a certain length of tnne. But it would be a souad and wise exercise of discretion for ffae Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordiaary powers under Arti.de 226 ia the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by aud allow fhings to happen aad then approach the Court to put fonvard stale clauns and tnr to unsetUe setfled inatters." >. The Supreiae Court ia landlal Jaiswal aad others3nu-fher obsen/ed as uiider: "Now, it is we31 setfled tbat fhe power of the High Court to issue au appropriate writ under Article 226 of fhe Consti.tuti.on is discretionary aad fhe High Court in tbe exercise of its discretion does not ordiaarily assist the tanly and the indolen.t or the acquiescent and the lefhargic. If there is inorduiate delay on the part of fhe petitioner in fiting a writ petition aad such delay is not satisfactorily explaiued, ftie High Court niay decliiie to intervene and graat relief in the exercise of its writ jirrisdiction. The evolution. ''AIR 1974 SC 2271 3 (1986) 4 SCC 566 ^s^^-s-^^s^^ss^sssS^^. of this rule of laches or delay is preinised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordiuarily permit a belated resort to fhe extraordiaaiy reiuedy under fh.e writ jurisdiction because it is Ukely to cause coiifusion and public inconvenience and bring ia its train new injustices. The rights of tbird parti.es may intervene and if fhe writ jurisdiction is exercised ou a writ petition filed after uiireasonable delay, it inay have the effect of iuflictuig not only hardship aud iaconveuience but also irijustice on tbird parties. When fhe writ jurisdiction of tlie High Court is uivoked, unexplauied delay coupled wifh fhe creation of tbird part}' rights ia the m.eaawlule is au ir&portaat factor which abvays weighs wifh the High. Court ia deciding whefher or not to exercise such jurisdiction. We do not fhink it necessaiy to burden. fhis judgiaent with reference to various decisions of this Court where it has been eiaphasized tune aad agaia fhat where fhere is iaordiaate aud unexplaiued delay aad third party rights are cieated iu fhe uitervening period, fh.e High Court would decluie to interfeie, even if fhe State action coinplauied of is u.nconstituti.ors.al or illegal. 7. The Supreme Court in Buara SSaadasd Cto. Ltd. & othets Vs. Diaabaadhu BSajutadar & aaother4also observed as under : °The very conduct of non-raisin.g of aii objection in. fhe inatter by the euiployee, irt our view, sliould be a sufficient reasoa for fhe High Court, not to entertaia such applications on groiuids of acquiescence, undue delav and laclies." TIie Supreine Court in as uiider 4 (1995) 4 SCC 172 ° (2006) 4 SCC 322 ^^^^^^^^gjg^^^lj^^^^^^g^^^^^l^l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^g^^s^^^^^^^gg^^j^gl^^J^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^:^:?%t!^;^®lf^1Sie?^^^:%^;^;^®^t^^lt^^ ,.^v,-::::...:/:.;.^^^^ =~^F.. "Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borae iu miad by the High Court when they exercise fheir discretionaiy powers under Article 226 of fhe Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Coiirt inay refuse to invoke its extraordiaanr powers if there is such negligence or oinission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with fhe lapse of tune and ofher circuinstaiices, caiises prejudice to the opposite pariy. Even. where fiuidamental right is involved the matter is stUl within fhe discretion of the Coiirt as pointed out ia Dui^a Prasad V. Chief ControUer of Iinports aad Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasouably." o Kvr In. the present case, fhe cause of action arose for the first tiine on 21.9.1984 when respondeats No. 5 aiid 6 were proinoted on the post of lecturer as accordin.g to fhe petitioner, the respondents No. 5 aiid 6 were jucior on iaitial appoiataient as Upper Division Teachers. Thereaft.er, fhey were again proraoted on 28.2. 1994 and 16.9.1995 ou fhe post of Prilicipal, when fhe second cause of action arose. The petitioner in. fhe present petition is claiiaiag seniorily on aU the posts immediately above his aileged. jimior respoadents No. 5 and 6. The petitioner has not taken any steps shice 21.9.1984 tBl date aad remained tai-dy aad indolent. This belated approach would certaialy cause hardship aad iaconvenience to otheis whose rights have been setfled long back. 10. As a i^sult, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition is disaussed as not xaaiiitainable on fhe groiuud of delay iu approaching this Court. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge