Rajesh Alasingh Chavan v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana And Anothers

0703wp4155.14 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

Writ Petition (wp) No. 4155 of 2014 Rajesh Alasingh Chavan v.

Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Buldhana & anr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.M. Ukey Advocate for Res. no.1.

....

Coram : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.

Date : 7th March, 2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the communication of the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana, informing the petitioner that the petitioner would not be entitled for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.9.2006 as he does not possess the requisite experience. On hearing learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad and on a perusal of the writ petition, it appears that this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. An advertisement for appointing a Resource Person under the scheme of "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan" was published on 13.9.2006. After the interview on

0703wp4155.14 17.12.2006, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected as he did not possess the requisite experience of two years. Though the petitioner was informed about the rejection of his candidature on 09.2.2007 and also earlier, the petitioner did not challenge the said decision. The writ petition is filed on 18.6.2014. The petition suffers from laches. Merely because the petitioner made representation to the respondent-Zilla Parishad even after the rejection of his candidature on 09.2.2007, the period of limitation would not stop running. The petitioner ought to have approached this Court within a reasonable time from 09.2.2007. The petition is filed more than seven years after the receipt of impugned communication dated 09.2.2007 by referring to a subsequent order of the Zilla Parishad dated 12.7.2012 reiterating their stand that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment.

Since the writ petition suffers from laches, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

Judge Judge /TA/