AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner seeks the writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner as Senior Scale Teacher with effect from
01.09.1975 and frame seniority list on the basis of the said promotion and also to promote the petitioner further to the post of Headmaster.
Petitioner was appointed as teacher, in the year 1975 the respondents made some promotions to the post of Post graduate teachers in the grade
of 250700. He is seeking relief of promotion being similarly situated from the year 1975 by means of this writ petition.
Mr. Qadiri, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents, has submitted that this writ petition deserves to be
dismissed as the petitioner has not explained the delay and latches. In support of his plea he has re lied on the judgement of the Supreme Court
delivered in P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of T.N. reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271 wherein the petitioner challenged the pro motion after 14 years
and dealing with the plea of delay and latches the Supreme Court held as under :
Where a government servant slept over the promotions of his juniors over his head for fourteen years and then approached the High Court with
writ petition challenging the relaxation of relevant rules in favour of the juniors, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. Such an aggrieved
person should approach the court at least within six months or at the most a year of promotion of his juniors.
It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to, exercise their powers under Art. 226, nor is it that there can never be a case where
the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the
courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Art. 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and
who stand by and allow things to hap pen and then approach the court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.
He has also cited in support of his plea another judgement of Supreme Court delivered in Union of India vs. S.S. Kothiyal reported in 1998 (8)
SCC 682 wherein the petitioner did not challenge the promotion and permitted the respondents to make further promotions. Dealing with such
situation, the Supreme Court held as under:
In our opinion, the admitted facts of this case alone are sufficient to reverse the judgement of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the
Division Bench of the High Court. According to the version of Respondent No. 1 himself, his representation against nonpromotion as Deputy
Commandant was rejected on 10.06.1971, the second such representation made on 19.08.1971 was rejected on 10.06.1971, was rejected on
04.11.1974, and the third representation made on 12.04.1971 was rejected on 11.07.1977. It is obvious that on rejection of his representation in
June 1971, there was no occasion for respondent No. 1 to wait any longer to challenge his nonpromotion and, therefore the filling of the writ
petition 8 years thereafter in December, 1978, was highly belated and deserved to be rejected on the ground of laches alone in view of the settled
principles relating to interference in service matters of this kind in exercise of the power of Judicial review..."".
The petitioner has not explained the delay in approaching the court. Delay itself is a factor which disentitles the petitioner the relief prayed for.
The petition being hit by unexplained delay and laches is, accordingly, dismissed.