AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Varun Kumar Chakarvorty, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General
appearing for the respondents.
This writ petition is filed challenging an order dated 30.03.2015, whereby, the petitioners, who are Constables (General Duties), were sent to their
original place of posting on administrative exigencies.
It appears that the petitioners were earlier posted to ‘M.T. Pool’ on temporary basis. The petitioners were selected as Constable (General
Duties) by way of direct recruitment.
The respondents filed their return, wherein, it is stated that the present petitioners had assailed the said order dated 30.03.2015 by filing different
writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition (S) Nos. 1229 of 2015, 1227 of 2015 and 1226 of 2015 and that the said writ petitions were disposed of by an
order dated 09.04.2015, providing that, in the event, the petitioners preferred a representation before the competent authority within a period of 15
days, such authority shall decide the representation(s) in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.
It is also stated that pursuant thereto, a common representation was submitted by the petitioners. The representation preferred by the writ
petitioners was duly considered and rejected by an order dated 25.05.2015. However, filing of the earlier writ petition has been suppressed by the
petitioners. That apart, the present writ petition came to be filed after 2 years of passing of the said order and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed only ground of suppression of material facts and for delay and laches.
No rejoinder-affidavit has been filed to the reply, which was filed on 14.11.2017.
We have perused the order dated 09.04.2015 passed by this Court. It is evident that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands
and suppressed the facts that they had approached this Court earlier challenging the very same order dated 30.03.2015. Subsequent order dated
25.05.2015, rejecting their representation, has also not been challenged.
The petitioners having assailed the order dated 30.03.2015 in earlier writ petition(s), this writ petition, wherein challenge is made to the very same
order dated 30.03.2015, even otherwise, is not maintainable.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.