R. Sudarsanan, Head Constable GR. II and P. Satheeshkumar vs State of Kerala, Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The Petitioners are working as Head Constables Grade II in the Police Department of the Government of Kerala. They have filed this writ petition complaining of a mistake in their seniority which has crept into the seniority list prepared as early as in 1994. The Petitioners now seek a direction to consider Exts.P6 and P7 representations filed on 10.9.2009 in this regard. They have sought to explain the long delay of 16 years in seeking correction of the alleged mistake in paragraph 17 of the writ petition thus:

It is submitted that against the transfer of the Petitioners from Kozhikode District (Rural) to Pathanamthitta District, three Writ Petitions were filed in this Hon''ble Court. They were: O.P. No. 8670 of 1994-F, O.P. No. 8914 of 1994-J and O.P. No. 9165 of 1994-N. There were interim orders in favour of the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions, which were detrimental to the Respondents in the said Wps (including the Petitioners in this Writ Petition). The Petitioners were Respondents 15 and 16 in all the 3 writ petitions. Counter affidavits were filed by both the official and party Respondents including the Petitioners herein. The Petitioners and other Respondents took all efforts to get the interim orders of stay vacated and the writ petitions disposed at the earliest. The first among the writ petitions, O.P. No. 8670 of 1994-F was disposed by this Hon''ble Court on 07.10.1998. Though all efforts were made to get the other writ petitions also heard and disposed, it took considerable time to get it disposed.O.P. No. 8914 of 1994 was disposed of by the judgment dated 26.07.2001. The last one O.P. No. 9165 of 1994-N was disposed on 10.01.2005. The interim orders passed by this Hon''ble Court at the time of admission of the writ petitions remained till final disposal.

I am not satisfied that the reasons offered by the Petitioners is sufficient to explain the long delay. Nothing prevented the Petitioners from seeking the correction of the alleged mistake in the seniority list all these years. Writ petitions challenging their seniority was pending is no ground to delay seeking correction of the alleged mistake for all these years. Even otherwise, admittedly those writ petitions were dismissed as early as on 10.1.2005. Still, 5 years have gone by after that judgment also. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Petitioners are guilty of unexplained delay and laches. The writ petition is dismissed on that ground.