Pardeep Kumar v. Union Of India & ORS

$~01 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3410/2017 PARDEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. A. Tewari, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Anil Panwar, CGSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 22.05.2017 The challenge made in the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed on 13th April, 2017 is to the rejection letter dated 17th April, 2012.

2.

The petitioner had earlier approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide CWP No. 16983/2016. The date of filing of the said writ petition is not available but the order dated 21st February, 2017 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court indicates that notice of motion was issued on 22nd August, 2016.

3.

The present writ petition has to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The recruitment process for the post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Force was to be followed by training etc. Granting relief as prayed for in the present writ petition,

would set the clock back by 4-5 years. We do not think that we should entertain the present writ petition after and at this point of time as it would lead to administrative difficulties and chaos. Stale claims and disputes, if allowed, would create uncertainty and in fact rather than repairing the damage, obstruct and would be detrimental to the cause of justice.

4.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that another candidate, who was also disqualified on account of signature in capital letters, has been granted relief. The petitioner in 2016 came to know that relief has been granted to this candidate. The petitioner had then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The aforesaid explanation does not satisfactorily explain the long delay of 4-5 years. Noticeably, the writ petition in which relief had been granted to another candidate was filed in 2013.

5.

We would not entertain the present writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. The same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

MAY 22, 2017/NA