AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harpreet Singh Brar, J.
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the posts of JBT Teachers on the ground that they were validly selected by the Selection Committee constituted by the respondents. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of ₹10,00,000/- to each of the petitioners for the alleged loss and damage caused to them on account of the acts and conduct of the respondents, which, according to the petitioners, resulted in violation of their fundamental and statutory rights.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that applications were invited for filling up 3206 posts of JBT Teachers vide advertisement published on 15.11.1999 (Annexure P1). The petitioners submitted their respective applications pursuant thereto and were called for interview, as discernible from Annexures P2 and P3. The interviews commenced on 01.12.1999 and were concluded within a period of one month. The result was declared on 07.10.2000 and the final selection list was forwarded to the respective District Primary Education Officers between 07.10.2000 to 12.10.2000. Learned counsel submits that despite being eligible and duly selected for the aforesaid posts, the petitioners were not issued appointment letters. Subsequently, the petitioners learnt through the electronic and print media that WP(Crl.) No.93 of 2003 had been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an IAS Officer, raising various allegations regarding corruption and manipulation in the selection and appointment of JBT Teachers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 25.11.2003, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the matter, as discernible from Annexure P4. It was also noticed that there were two selection lists, one stated to be genuine and the other disputed.
Learned counsel further submits that, pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the CBI submitted its report on 06.06.2008, wherein the names of the petitioners figured at Serial Nos.4488, 4420 and 4322, respectively, in the list of candidates whose total marks had allegedly been reduced in the second list. According to the petitioners, the CBI report further revealed that 1577 candidates had been accommodated by increasing their marks, thereby establishing manipulation in the selection process and resulting in candidates whose marks had been reduced being deprived of appointment despite their selection in the original list. It is submitted that the petitioners submitted a representation dated 19.04.2023 (Annexure P8), seeking appointment along with consequential benefits, but no action has been taken thereon.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment/order dated 28.07.2026 passed in a bunch of intra-court appeals, the lead case being LPA No.104 of 2014, titled as Punit Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others, has issued certain directions and that the claim of the petitioners deserves to be considered in the light of the aforesaid judgment dated 28.07.2026.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioners and submits that the advertisement in question was issued in the year 1999. Certain effected candidates had approached this Court by filing CWP No.269 of 2010, which was disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in CWP No.14018 of 2000, titled as Vijay Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others. He contends that the petitioners remained indolent for more than two decades and did not pursue their alleged claim within a reasonable period. It is further contended that the reliance placed by the petitioners upon Punit Sharma's case (supra) is misplaced, as the intra-court appeal therein has arisen out of the judgment rendered in CWP No.269 of 2010. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are fence-sitters and they cannot be permitted to claim the benefit of relief granted to candidates who were diligent enough to approach this Court within a reasonable period of time. It is, thus, submitted that the claim of the petitioners is liable to be rejected on the sole ground of inordinate delay and laches.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the advertisement in question was published on 15.11.1999 and the selection process was undertaken thereafter. In the meantime, litigation ensued in relation to the said selection of JBT Teachers in the State of Haryana and certain candidates who had participated in the selection process approached this Court by filing CWP No.14018 of 2000, whereas another set of candidates instituted CWP No.269 of 2010. The present petitioners, however, were not diligent or vigilant enough to avail the remedy at the relevant time and remained indolent for more than two decades. It was only on 19.04.2023 that they submitted a representation (Annexure P8), seeking appointment along with consequential benefits. No satisfactory explanation for such an inordinate delay in asserting their alleged rights has been brought to the notice of this Court.
It is also pertinent to notice that Punit Sharma's case (supra), emanates from the judgment rendered in CWP No.269 of 2010 and the candidates in the said proceedings had approached this Court considerably earlier and had been diligently pursuing their remedies. The present petitioners, at this belated stage, cannot be allowed to seek parity with petitioners in CWP No.269 of 2010 who had approached the Court within a reasonable period. Mere participation in the selection process does not create any indefensible right in favour of the petitioners. It is trite law that delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented him from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman /Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following was held:
“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. Fence- sitters 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.”
(emphasis added)
Further, in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and others 2024 AIR SC 2717, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High Courts must factor in the delay, while exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further opined that undue and unexplained delay may be reason enough to dismiss a petition as indolent litigants ought not to be encouraged by writ Courts. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment rendered by a Division bench of this Court in Kartar Singh v. Managing Director, HVPNL and others, CWP No.26962 of 2015 decided on 04.04.2018 as well as a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Narain Rohilla v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd in CWP-1167 of 2025 decided on 17.01.2025.
In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well settled that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.
In view of the discussion herein above, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.