If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction – Karnataka High Court.
If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction – Karnataka High Court. In case of writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to grant service weightage for the service rendered as contract principal is in conflict. And in consequence direct the respondents consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appointment such an issue was decided in the judgement of MR DEVARAJU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA (WRP-30379/2018 (S-RES) decided by the single bench of MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI In this case the issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant service weightage for the service rendered between 01.08.2008 to 16.03.2011 as contract principal. In consequence direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appoint him to the post of principal in any of Morarji Desai residential school. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, Petitioner has not pointed out any executive order or statutory rule which provides for giving weightage for rendering service on contract basis against a principal post. In the absence of legal or statutory right, petitioner is not entitled for a writ of mandamus to claim weightage for the service rendered on contract basis.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS. R. K. ZALPURI &amp; ORS(AIR 2016 SC 3006), held under what circumstances the writ petition filed under Article 226 can be entertained, if there is a delay and latches which reads as under, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that, in this regard reference to a passage from MANAGING DIRECTOR &amp; ANR VS. K. THANGAPPAN AND ANR would be apposite:- “Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party”. After recording the statements and hearing the averments of both the parties the Hon’ble Court stated that “The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary 6 remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO. 30379 2018MR. DEVARAJU N.P S O. PUTTASWAMY AGED 41 YEARS PRINCIPAL MORARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL DHARMAPURA HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT 571 189. BY SRI. VICTOR MANOHARAN S ADV.) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY NO.8 MSB 1 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU 560 052. BY SRI. NAGAIAH ADV. FOR C R2) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT SERVICE WEIGHTAGE FOR THE SERVICE RENDERED BETWEEN 01.087.2008 TO 16.03.2011 AS CONTRACT PRINCIPAL. AND IN CONSEQUENCE DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR SELECTION AND APPOINT HIM TO THE POST OF PRINCIPAL IN ANY OF MORARJI DEASI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant service weightage for the service rendered between to 16.03.2011 as principal. In consequence direct the respondents to the case of the petitioner selection and appoint him to the post of Principal in any of Morarji Desai Residential Issue such other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case by allowing this writ petition in the interest of 2. Question for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to weightage for service rendered as a contract principal during the period from 01.08.2008 to 16.03.2011 or not Petitioner has not pointed out any executive order or statutory rule which provides for giving weightage for rendering service on contract basis against a principal post. In the absence of legal or statutory right petitioner is not entitled for a writ of mandamus to claim weightage for the service rendered on contract basis. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS. R. K. ZALPURI & ORS. reported in AIR 2016 SC 3006 held under what circumstances the writ petition filed under Article 226 can be entertained if there is a delay and latches which reads as under: “20. Having stated thus it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others[6] wherein this Court while dwelling upon under Article 226 of the Constitution has expressed thus: “The Court while jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether: a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved b) the petition reveals all material facts the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law and host of other factors.” 21. In this regard reference to a passage from Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd Through its Chairman & Managing Director & Anr Vs. K. Thangappan and Anr[7] would be apposite: “Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causes prejudice opposite party”. After so stating the Court after referring to the in State of M.P. v. Nandalal Jaiswal[8] restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements which is to the following effect: “the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction”. Accordingly petition stands dismissed. Sd 