IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4387 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBAIR K., H.S.S.T (JUNIOR)(ARABIC) PULIYAPARAMB HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MAHAMOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 4387 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a HSST (Junior) in Arabic in Puliyaparamb H.S.S, Kodunthirapully in Palakkad district with effect from 2-8-2000. But, by Ext. P2 order dated 29-11-2003, that appointment was approved only with effect from 16-11-2001. The petitioner now seeks the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to approve the service rendered by the petitioner as HSST (Junior) (Arabic) in Puliyaparambu H.S.A, Kodunthirapully in Palakkad dist. for the period from 2-8-2000 to 16-11-2001. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary due to the petitioner for the period from 2-8-2000 to 16-11-2001; iii) to declare that the petitioner was qualified to hold the post of HSST/(Junior) (Arabic) for the period from 2-8-2000 to 16-11- 2001 as he has held the said post with effect from 16-11-2001; iv) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears for salary to the petitioner for the period from 2-8- 2000 to 16-11-2001 with interest within a time frame to e fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The petitioner has explained the long delay of almost 7 years in seeking reliefs against Ext. P2 order, in paragraph 10 of the writ petition thus: “10. It is true that Ext. P2 was issued by the 2nd respondent in the year 2002. Thus some delay has occurred in filing this writ petition. It so happened because the petitioner expected that his requests by way of representation will be honoured and a formal order will be passed by the 2nd respondent granting approval of appointment with effect from 2-8-2000 itself and consequently service for the period from 2-8-2000 to 16-11-2001 also will be approved. However, no third party rights are prejudiced on account of the delay and the respondents also are not subjected to any loss or prejudice as result of the delay. Still further, there is long delay on the part of the respondents in taking a decision in W.P.C. No. 4387/2010. -: 2 :- the mater of approval of service from 2-8-2000 to 16-11-2001. Even now no decision is taken, as a matter of fact. There is no formal order rejecting approval of appointment from 2-8-2000 to 16-11-2001. The representation also is still pending and the matter is yet to be decided. In view of this delay on the part of the respondents there is recurring cause of action for the petitioner. Even otherwise, in financial matters, the respondents cannot plead delay and laches against the petitioner when prejudice is caused to the respondents and the third parties and when there is recurring cause of action. (please see the decision in Raghavan Unni v. Union of India, 2007(2) KLT situation 39 case No. 55 and Rajan C. v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others, 2009(1) KHC 151).” 3. I am not satisfied that the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the delay. This is not a recurring right as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner's right for approval with effect from 28-2- 2000 was rejected by Ext. P2 order in 2003. Even if the petitioner has submitted a representation against the same, that is no explanation for the delay of 7 years. If the representation had not evoked any response within a reasonable time, the petitioner ought to have sought appropriate remedies in the matter, which he has not. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner has not explained the delay satisfactorily. Hence, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.