Unexplained delay on the part of the Petitioner in filing the writ petition.: High Court of Delhi

123. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 28th February 2022 W.P.(C) 3516 2022 ROHIT SHUKLA Petitioner in person Petitioner DGMSThrough: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla CGSC UOI) with Mr. Sarvan Kumar Adv. for UOI Respondent HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA D.N. PATEL CHIEF JUSTICEC.M.No.10352 2022Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 3516 2022 following reliefs: This so called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred seeking “i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ s order s direction s directing Respondent to decide the Representation dated 17.11.2021 of the Petitioner forthwith within a stipulated time period with a written intimation to the present Petitioner. And Or W.P.(C) 3516 2022 ii. Pass any other or further order s or direction s as this Hon ble Court deems fit and proper be also awarded to the Petitioner and against the Respondents in the interest of 2. We have heard petitioner appearing in person. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. This is a revenge taking type of writ petition. Petitioner appearing in person submits that Shri Karamvir Singh was appointed as a Junior Commissioned Officer and at the time of his appointment the details supplied by him were factually incorrect and therefore by way of this Public Interest Litigation this petitioner is in search of cancellation of the appointment of Karamvir Singh from the employment given by the 5. We see no reason to entertain this writ petition much less as a public facts reasons and pronouncements: The appointment is given by the respondent to one Shri Karamvir Singh. The said employee is not joined as a party respondent in this writ petition. As his appointment is to be cancelled no writ petition can be allowed in absence of a candidate or an employee whose employment is sought to be terminated. Such employee is an essential party to the litigation and he ought to be heard by this Court. For the reasons best this petitioner Shri Karamvir Singh whose employment is under challenge is not joined as a party respondent. Hence we see no reason to entertain this writ W.P.(C) 3516 2022 ii) Moreover the employment was given to Karamvir Singh by the respondent in the year 2015. The writ petition has been preferred in the year 2022 hence there is gross unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in filing this writ petition. iii) Public Interest Litigation in a purely service matter of the present nature for the termination of the services is not tenable at law. The law on this aspect is no longer res integra and we may refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following pronouncements: a) Vishal Ashok Thorat and Others vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Others 2019 SCC OnLine SC 886 Para’s 18 & 38 b) Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo 1 SCC 161 Para 14.1. c) Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors. 2010) 9 SCC 655 2010 Para 20. d) Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab 5 SCC 136 Paras 7 and 12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts reasons and judicial pronouncements there is no substance in this writ petition. In view of the aforesaid we do not see any reason to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.25 000 to be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. The aforesaid amount shall be utilized for the programme ‘Access to Justice’. W.P.(C) 3516 2022 A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Member Secretary Delhi State Legal Services Authority Patiala House Courts New Delhi 110001. CHIEF JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J FEBRUARY 28 2022 W.P.(C) 3516 2022 

Summary: This so-called Public Interest Litigation after looking into facts seems to be a revenge taking type of writ petition upheld by High Court of Delhi by the learned bench led by HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA in the case of ROHIT SHUKLA vs. DGMS (ARMY) W.P.(C) 3516/2022 on 28th February, 2022. Brief facts of the case as stated by petitioner appearing in person is that Shri Karamvir Singh was appointed as a Junior Commissioned Officer and at the time of his appointment, the details supplied by him were factually incorrect and therefore by way of this Public Interest Litigation, this petitioner is in search of cancellation of the appointment of Karamvir Singh from the employment given by the respondent. Respondent states that said employee is not joined as a party respondent in this writ petition. As his appointment is to be cancelled, no writ petition can be allowed in absence of a candidate or an employee, whose employment is sought to be terminated. Such employee is an essential party to the litigation and he ought to be heard by this Court. And the employment was given to Karamvir Singh by the respondent in the year 2015. The writ petition has been preferred in the year 2022, hence there is gross unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in filing this writ petition. The Court opined that we do not see any reason to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. The aforesaid amount shall be utilized for the programme ‘Access to Justice’.