Kuldeep Kumar And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“That a writ in the nature of madamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents directing the respondent No. 3 to recommend the names of the petitioners for appointment against the post of PGT (Commerce)(on contract), post code 305, against advertisement no. 22/2011 dated 13.12.2011 immediately after the declaration of result on 21.11.2012 with a further direction to respondent no. 2 to offer appointment to the petitioners as PGT Commerce on contract w.e.f. December 2012 alongwith all consequential benefits and the appointments made to the petitioners w.e.f. 2.07.2014 may kindly be ordered to be treated having been made w.e.f. December 2012 along with all consequential benefits of seniority, annual increments leave encashment and pensionary benefits for all intents and purposes with arrears of pay and allowances alongwith due and admissible interest in the interest of justice”

The case of the petitioners is that a recruitment process was undertaken by the respondents to fill up 103 posts of PGT (Commerce), vide Advertisement dated 13.12.2011. The petitioners applied for the post being duly qualified. They underwent the process of recruitment and were ultimately offered appointments on 02.07.2014, vide Annexure P-5. Their grievance is that as the result of the said process was declared as far back as on 21.11.2012, therefore, the respondents be directed to treat them as having been appointed with effect from 21.11.2012 because the delay in offering them appointment for any reason whatsoever, which was not attributable to the petitioners, cannot act to their deterrent.

An objection has been taken with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delays and latches, by the learned counsel for the respondents.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with this writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the petition is indeed hit by gross delays and latches and filing of this writ petition is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law.

The process to fill up the post was undertaken in the year 2011 and result was declared by way of a Press Note on 21. 11.2012. It is a matter of record that the petitioners were offered appointment on 02.07.2014. This Court fails to understand that if the petitioners indeed were aggrieved by the fact that the appointment which was offered to them in the month of July, 2014 was bad and they ought to have been offered appointment from the date of the declaration of the result then what took the petitioners one full decade to realize this fact. The answer is but obvious that filing of this writ petition after a decade is nothing but an attempt so as to take a chance as petitioners stand nothing to loose in this litigation. The Court deprecates this kind of practice because until and unless there are cogent reasons spelled out in the writ petition as to why the petitioners could not come to the Court within some reasonable time, as from the date when cause of action accrued, the Court has to be in circumspect with regard to the intentions of the petitioners who approach the Court, after such long delays, as in the present case.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the petitioners with Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. Cost to be within a period of four weeks. For compliance, list on 09.12.2024.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.