Satyendra Singh Tewatia vs Sitaram Sharma and Others

This case is listed for admission, however, with the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard and disposed of finally. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 20.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8497/2012.

By the aforesaid order, the Writ Court has directed Registrar, Jiwaji University, Gwalior to decide the representation of the respondent No. 1 (petitioner) within a period of two months.

The appellant pleaded that earlier a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 1261/1991 was filed before this court against the order of regularisation dt. 23.7.1990 (Annexure P/8 in the writ petition), by which the appellant was regularised w.e.f. 27.12.1980. That writ petition was finally disposed of directing the respondents to decide the representations. Thereafter, the representations were rejected by the University vide order dt. 24.11.1995. Contempt Petition bearing MCC No. 183/1996 was filed, that was also dismissed. Hence, the Writ court could issue direction to decide representation.

We have perused the record of W.P. No. 1261/1991. In the aforesaid Writ petition, petitioner was a party and present appellant was respondent. The petitioners in the aforesaid petition challenged the orders (Annexure P/7 and P/8). Vide order (Annexure P/7) the appellant was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 8.10.1988. The petitioners including the respondent No. 1 also pleaded that they were appointed on the post of LDC prior to the present appellant and confirmed prior to him, hence, they were senior to the appellant.

The court vide order dt. 20.7.1995 disposed of the writ petition (W.P. No. 1261/1991) with a direction to the Vice Chancellor to consider the representations of the petitioners including present respondent No. 1. The court passed the following order:-

Heard.

The only prayer which was made at the time of arguments is that the representations Annexure P/5 and P/6 made by the petitioners be ordered to be decided. Accordingly, a direction is given to the Vice Chancellor to look into the grievance made by the petitioners, and decide the representations Annexure P/5 and P/6 within a period of three months. The writ petition itself be treated as a representation. In case any fresh representation is made, that may also be taken into consideration and decided within the aforementioned period of two months.

The period of two months would begin from the date the above documents are supplied to the Vice Chancellor by the petitioners.

Disposed of accordingly.

Thereafter, the representation was rejected by the University, hence, the matter became final. Again by the impugned order, the Writ Court issued a direction to the respondent No. 2 - University to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/8) filed before the Writ Court, which is in regard to grant of seniority and regularisation at par with the appellant.

It is a stale claim and when the matter has already been decided by the court, in our opinion, it could not be challenged subsequently in independent petition.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal and Another Vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others, has considered the issuance of directions of the court in regard to consider the representation and held as under:-

We have to trace of doubt that the respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior employee at the relevant time. They chose not to do so for six years and the junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular promotion took place. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that they had given representations at the relevant time but the same fell in deaf ears. It is interesting to note that when the regular selection took place, they accepted the position solely because the seniority was maintained and, thereafter, they knocked at the doors of the tribunal only in 2003. It is clear as noon day that the cause of action had arisen for assailing the order when the junior employee was promoted on ad hoc basis on 15.11.1983. In C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining Indus. Est. and Another, , a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the concept of representations and the directions issued by the court or tribunal to consider the representations and the challenge to the said rejection thereafter. In that context, the court has expressed thus:-

Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.

In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar, , this Court, after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court''s direction. Neither a court''s direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.

In the present case, the matter has become final, hence, in our opinion, the direction issued by the court co consider the representation is contrary to law. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the writ court is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.