It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”- High Court of Delhi.
It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”- High Court of Delhi. Under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Repeated representations by the petitioner would not extend the time period to file writ petition as upheld by the High Court of Delhi through the learned single bench led by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN in the case of RAJESH SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (W.P(C) 12682/2021 &amp; C.M.No.39947/2021). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected by the Service Selection Commission (Central Area), Allahabad, through common examination conducted for Constable (GD) Examination 2011, for CRPF, BSF, and CISF &amp; SSB. It is stated that the Petitioner had submitted all his documents with the respondents on 12 February, 2015 “Candidate Not reported” was mentioned before the Petitioner’s name. The Petitioner had not received any call letter or instructions requiring him to report the October, 2016 well before the last date of submission i.e., 30th December, 2016. It is stated that despite completing all the formalities as required by the Respondents, the Petitioner was not selected for the post. The Petitioner had addressed various letters and representation to the Respondents enquiring about the status of his employment enquiring about the status to which there was no response. However, vide letter dated 29th October, 2020 while replying to the representation of the petitioner, the respondents had informed the petitioner that his dossier has not been received till date. Keeping an account of the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, the Hon’ble Court held, “This Court is of the view that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the examination and selection procedure conducted from 2011 to 2015, he should have approached the High Court in 2015 itself when the Petitioner did not receive any intimation from the Respondents regarding his appointment or at least within a reasonable time i.e., from 12 October, 2016 – when the petitioner despite submitting his documents had not received any response. Grant of any relief, as prayed for, at this stage to the petitioner would have an adverse effect down the chain and the seniority of a large number of officers in SSB would be adversely affected. It has also been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that repeated representations by the petitioner would not extend the time period to file the writ petition. Consequently, the present writ petition along with pending application is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 12682 2021 & C.M.No.39947 2021 RAJESH SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Rakesh Kumar Yadav Advocate. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Through Mr.Vivekanand Mishra Advocate. ..... Respondents Date of Decision: 12th November 2021. HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN Jin the SSB from the year 2011 with back wages and all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was selected by the Service Selection Commission Allahabad through common examination conducted for Constable Examination 2011 for CRPF BSF CISF & SSB. He states that in the selection list dated W.P.12682 2021 Digitally SignedBy:KRISHNA BHOJSigning Date:13.11.202113:48:51Signature Not Verified 4th February 2015 “Candidate Not reported” was mentioned before the Petitioner’s name. He however states that the Petitioner had not received any call letter or instructions requiring him to report. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Petitioner had th October 2016 well submitted all his documents with the respondents on 12 before the last date of submission i.e. 30th December 2016. He states that despite completing all the formalities as required by the Respondents the Petitioner was not selected for the post. He further states that the Petitioner had addressed various letters and representation to the Respondents enquiring about the status of his employment enquiring about the status to which there was no response. However vide letter dated 29th October 2020 while replying to the representation of the petitioner the respondents had informed the petitioner that his dossier has not been received till date. This Court is of the view that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the examination and selection procedure conducted from 2011 to 2015 he should have approached the High Court in 2015 itself when the Petitioner did not receive any intimation from the Respondents regarding his appointment or at least within a reasonable time i.e. from 12 October 2016 when the petitioner despite submitting his documents had not received any response. Grant of any relief as prayed for at this stage to the petitioner would have an adverse affect down the chain and the seniority of a large number of officers in SSB would be adversely affected. The Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Managing Director U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Gopal 2020 SCC OnLine SC 101 has held that delay defeats equity and law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. The relevant portion of the W.P.12682 2021 Digitally SignedBy:KRISHNA BHOJSigning Date:13.11.202113:48:51Signature Not Verified said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India nevertheless such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fencesitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In SS Balu v. State of Kerala this Court observed thus: “17. It is also well settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”. …It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.” 17. Similarly in Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India this Court while considering the claim of candidates who despite being higher in merit exercised their right to parity much after those who were though lower in merit but were diligently agitating their rights this Court observed that: “27. …It becomes an obligation to take into consideration the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a matter of great significance that at one point of time equity that existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance and paves the path of extinction with the passage of time.” It has also been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that repeated representations by the petitioner would not extend the time period to file the W.P.12682 2021 Digitally SignedBy:KRISHNA BHOJSigning Date:13.11.202113:48:51Signature Not Verified writ petition. Consequently the present writ petition along with pending application is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. MANMOHAN J NAVIN CHAWLA J NOVEMBER 12 2021 W.P.12682 2021 Digitally SignedBy:KRISHNA BHOJSigning Date:13.11.202113:48:51Signature Not Verified 