^;.. •»--. 'dlAf 'einBjeg -BS|G 'jnduiun»!eg-u9i •jndyiunxiea 1-I03S 'jeBeuBi^ JBJSUSO jsiqo •cj 'jndseiig Od S IV 'Jndseiia '^033 •JSDBUB1AJ IBJSUSQ S}1 UBnOJU; Ds^u-in soisyieoo aiSiSEj uinog (7 (1. Sl?.13CNOdS3c snsjeA ai/ii' 'efnBjes - BSIQ 'jndiejng -L|3i edoLj>i sBeiiiA 'o/j 'sjesA OE stie 'LUBJiLipng 'o/g 'iuBy ]epu| (8 'd'iA! 'efn6je9 'BjEdnpuei BBeiiiA 'o/j 'SJBSA [.£ aBe 'puoo lesuesft! 'o./'S 'uBuig uejnqo •HSiQ 'jndfejns-ysi { S i:ai*S!ij •dW 'Bfn6jeg •BSIQ 'jndisjng uol BLLueS 3u'B]lin 'O/J "JB/'niBy peseja Aspiidex 'o/g 'JBMUSSUJBX (9 'cSVi ejhSjss -BSIQ :-;ndfejns -usj^ jndueABjBN sSeujA 'Q/J •AspEA doojBer 'o/g 'ueiiojft! fug fe •diA| 'efn6jes -USIQ 'jndS'ejng-Liej. ;je6eN pesejdAiLis SOBiiln 'O/J 'SJESA g£ 3DB pu03 lesjeLUV 'o/g 'L(6u!9 ueyxeiaiey (f 'di'\! 'efnBjes -USIQ jndfejno -Lj8i ;jndj8A''.uSsuep3[/ij 96°|!!A •o/j sjeaA i.g SDB 'puoQ uGuis pueuy 'o/g 'L{6uis ueABjeuBBr- l.f •d!A! 'epiBjes •USIQ 'jndfejng - i-Oi 'jndejysig sSeiiiA 'o/y 'sje'SA 62 s6e 'iuepieg ueAejeN 'o/s 'jexeieiuex (s •dVi 'eSn&es 'lsiQ 'Jndisjns yei 'ejeduqB'a eBeijiA 'o/j 'sjesA i.g sSe TiyEg |e|u>ins 'o/g •SBIIA aiey (1- Sll ij. iSSS. 10^982 'ON uosm^st tMtW. ^s •/ VriV - 2-- Gsnerai Manager, 3ECL, Shataawa Area. A.T & PO Bhatgawa, Dist. Saiyuja MP. Sub Area Ivlanager, SECL, Bhatga'A'a, AT & PO- Bhatgawa, R=rr-i!;s MP ••^•'^i S-^'^'^^- Sfli" * "'5!lg B f/Vrit Petition under Articie 226/227 ofthe Constitution of inoia) >B: Hon'bieMr. Satisft K. Agnihotri, ^. rr' it: Shri F.S. Khare, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vlvsk Vsr~a. counse! for the resDoncients. ipassed on I"' Auuust. 2007'! Accordh According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, t'ne petitioners v/ere seiected for appointment on the post of Categoro-1 Mazdoor in Bhataawa coliiery of the South Eastem Coameids Limited in the year 1984-1965. Despite iheir sslection, the pestioners were not appointed on the said post. The petitioners have fiied this petition in the rnonth ot' Juiy, 1997, after a long deiay of 12 years. 2) The petitioners pray for reiief on ths bssis of the order dated 21-4-1987 oassed bv the Hiah Court of Msdhva Pradesh at Jabaiour in M.P.No.1002/1985 (Prabhakar Singh and others Vs. Genera! F'l/lanager, Western Coatfleids, Baikunthpur and others), whersin the Hon'bie Division Bench dlsposed of the petiiion expressing hope that if the pstitioners have been found fit to be appointed as Loaders, their csses should be considered by the rsspondents sympathsticaHy. Thereafter, one more ostition i.e., iVI.P. No. 2344/1989 was fited. !n ths meantime. some Dsrsons were aDpoinied. 'v •' --?- ~ "<- -3- !<:^ '-7L;^^^^^S 3)' Be that as it may, the petitioners nave not approached th®Court wiihin reasonabie time and they have chosen to take recourse to writ Jurisa'iction in the month of Juiy, 1997, affer iapse of about 12 years, seeking a direction that the petitloners be granted the same reiief as jranted to 12 similariy situated persons in M.P. No.2944/1989. This writ petition deseroes to be dtsmissed, at this stage, on account of unexpiained inordinate deiay o'F 12 years. 4) It is weii seKled that Hiah Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinariiy assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the Sethargic as the beiated approach may have the effect of infiicting not onlv hardshiD as inconvenience but aiso Injustice on other Darties. ESU 5) The Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State ofTamii Nadu' observed as under: "!t is not that there is any oeriod of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Articie 226, nor is it that fhere can never be a case v/here the Courts cannot interfere In a matter aiter the passage of .a certain iength of tfme. Sut It wouid be a sound and wise exercise of dlscretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinan» powers under Articies 226 in the case of persons •who do not approach it expeditiousiy for relief ana' who stand by and aiiow things to happen and then approach the Court to put fot-'A'ard staie claims and trv io unseitie settted mattere". 6) The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. & others Vs. Nandlal Jalswai and oihers' further obse"/ed as under: "Now, it is weii settied that ihe power of the Hiah Court to issue an appropriate wrlt under ArtlcSe 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High C-ourt in ths exercise of its discretion does not ordinariiy assist tardy and the indolent or the • AIB. 1974 SC 227 i ' (13g6)4SCC566 1^.1;^ -M- acauiescenf and t'ne iethargic. if there is Inordinate deiay on the part of the petitloner in fiiing a writ petition and such deiay is not satisfactory expiained, the High Court may deciine to intervene and grant relief tn the exercise of its v/rit jurisdiction. The evoiutlon of this rule of laches or deiay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily oermit a beiatsd resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is ilkeiv to cause coniusion and pubiic inconveniencs and bring in its trsin nsw injust'ces. The rights of third pames may Interoene and if the writ iurisdiction Is exerclsed on s writ petition fjied after unreasonabie deiay, it may ha.ve the eftect ot intiicting not on!y ngrdship and inconvenlence but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexpia'ned delay coupied with the creation of third party rights m the meanwhiie is an important factor whlch alwavs weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. 'vVe do not think it nscssssrv to burdsn this iudQment with referencs to various decisions of this Court where it has been emphasized time and again that where thsre is inordinate and unexplalned deiay and ihird party rights are created in the intewensng perlod, the High Court wouid deci'ne to interfere, even if the State action compiained of is unconsntutional or ilieaal''. unde; "he SuDreme Couri: in the case Vs. Dlnabandhu Majumdar & another" aiso observed as "The very conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by the employee, In our view, shouid be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to entertaln such appiications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and Jaches". i) Appiying the weil settied principies of iaw to the facts of the present case, ihe petitioners are not entltied to any reiief. The petitioners 'nave siept over their rights, if any, for more.than 12 years. ' {lyyil 4S1CC i;2 .-—^ -•'?- tSgs^ws Even otherwise, bv virtue ofthe seiection. the oetnioners do not acauire anv indefeasible right to be appointed on the said post, unless it is 'fbund that the appointment of some juniors in the seiect iist 'nas been made or the aopointments were made on the basis of pick and choose, ar&iiraniy. 3) As a resuit and for the above stated reasons, thls wnt petttion Is dismissed. No order as to costs. ru Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge