Karam Veer v. State Of Haryana And Others




    
    

 ! "# $% &' Date of Decision: 06th March, 2019 Karamveer .....Appellant versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents  &(  )&

*
+
*&

,
  *
    )&

 *


 
,  Present :

Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Shruti Jain, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. **** +
*&

,
  *
 This intra,court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the appellant herein on the ground of delay and latches.

2.

Relevant facts required to be noticed are as under:, Writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the adverytisement dated 20.02.2016 was filed by the appellant herein on the ground that only those having two years ITI course in Electrician/Electronics/Wireman trade or Lineman & Electrician were treated to be eligible for making application for appointment on the post of Shift Attendant.

3.

The case of the petitioners was that since they have a diploma in Electrical Engineering which is higher than the ITI course, they were wrongly treated as not having prescribed qualification for the post. The case

LPA No. 106 of 2018 2 set up by the respondent,Commission was that there was no bar on the persons having qualification to apply and as a matter of fact a corrigendum was issued and the last date for submission of the last date was extended but the appellants,petitioners never applied. The appellants,petitioners relied upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.05.2016 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 10014,2016
    

         

   to submit that in similar circumstances identically situated persons were allowed to submit hard copies of the application form and their candidature was directed to be considered. 4.

Learned Single Judge finding that the entire process of selection was over and the final result was declared on 30.04.2017 and the petitioners,appellants having approached the Court with delay of 1 1⁄2 years were not entitled for any relief at the belated stage and accordingly their writ petition was dismissed.

5.

Much stress has been laid down by learned counsel for the appellants on the fact that identically situated persons were permitted to participate in the selection process under the orders passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 10014 of 2016 and based on the same the appellants cannot be discriminated.

6.

We are afraid that this argument is of no help to the appellants herein and they cannot claim parity with those approached who approached the Court at the earlier point of time.

7.

In the case of
 



    



, the same issue was considered and answered as under:,
  

  

       

   

 

   

  

LPA No. 106 of 2018 3

  



  

 !

 

     

"



 

  

#  

   "

     !

  



  

        

  

 

 
 8.

In   !  "# 

 $ 

% $& % the Hon'ble Apex Court testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and latches pertaining to grant of service benefits has held as under:,


  

 # 

 $     #

     

%

     



# 


$ &    #

 #

   #   

     #    '

 ( 

!





  

 

 "

   

# 

  # 


()    # #  

     

 %

  %

      

  

  

  





    

 

   * !

 !

" #  $ %&  %  '   (    ) )*   

  

# 



 '

**+  

!

  

  

  

  

!

   



 #

     

   "   #

        

   

 

 *( ,

 



  

-. /  

 '   "+   ,! )



- 



LPA No. 106 of 2018 4     

   #     



# 

   

 

          

!

   

       '

**+

 #     







  

 

 

     

    

           

    '

 **+

  

 



 

        

  



         





 **     

 

 



       

 

  

  









 

  "0

1 

"       

  

      /   

        



   '



 #     

'  #

     



 

   

#   

    

 

 

0

  # 

   

 





 #  

  

  

          

 

      

   

  

/

       

 

 

   #   

    

    





#  

    " 



2 % 





    #   "



             

#  % 

 3# 2

   /  %



LPA No. 106 of 2018 5        





  4

     #





 # 

       # #



   # 



 # 

 


 56  

7 9.

In a more recent judgment in case of 

  '

 ()''* +,     ) ,-)$..



%$/, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:, 
4  

   

     6%

 

   

 

 

 

     #    

 

     

       % #

  # 

            #

    





     

 

  



   

   /

#







 

  

           

          

#

         

  

 %

      



       

   

#  

  

          

 





"

              
 10.

Thus, it stands well settled that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. While exercising an extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, the Courts are under obligation to protect the rights of citizens but similarly the Courts have to remain alive to the primary principles that when an aggrieved person without adequate reason invokes the jurisdiction of the Court at his own leisure, there is always a legal obligation to

LPA No. 106 of 2018 6 scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage is liable to be entertained or not. Needless to say that delay stands in the way of equity. Delay in approaching the Court is not liable to be ignored without any justification. 11.

In view of the facts of the case and the settled legal proposition discussed hereinabove, no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge in non,suiting the appellants on the ground of delay and latches and thus the impugned judgment does not require any interference. 12.

The appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed. (KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 6th March, 2019 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No