1. Termination of services following cancellation of selection process due to irregularities — Challenge to termination seeking reinstatement based on parity with another candidate. (Para 3 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. A. BOBDE, CJI., B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, JJ.
Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others – Appellants
VERSUS
Ram Gopal – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 852 of 2020 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 36253 of 2016] with Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2020 [Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2014 of 2017]
Decided on : 30-01-2020
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Pradeep Misra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Farrukh Rasheed, Advocate
For the Petitioner(s):Pradeep Misra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Farrukh Rasheed, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time.
(2) Equity acts in personam and not in rem – Prolonged delay of many years ought not to have been overlooked or condoned.
Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Termination – Reversal and direction for reinstatement – Equity acts in personam and not in rem – Prolonged delay of many years ought not to have been overlooked or condoned – Services of Respondent were terminated within months of his appointment, in 1978 – Respondent made representation and served UPPCL with a legal notice in 1982, however such feeble effort does little to fill gap between when cause of action arose and he chose to seek its redressal (in 1990) – Respondent has shown little concern to settled legal tenets – Even a civil suit challenging termination of services, if filed by Respondent, would have been barred by limitation in 1990 – Impugned order delivered by Single Judge as well as order of Division Bench upholding it, set aside – Respondent’s writ petition dismissed. (Paras 13, 14, 15 and 20)
(B) Constitution of India – Articles 32/226 – Writ proceedings – Limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time – Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester – Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists – There are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced – However, these principles may not apply to judgments which are delivered in rem – State and its instrumentalities are expected in such category of cases to themselves extend benefit of a judicial pronouncement to all similarly placed employees without forcing each person to individually knock doors of courts. (Paras 16 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Uttar Pradesh Power Corp. Ltd. (UPPCL) has preferred this appeal, assailing an order dated 29.04.2016 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) which in turn upheld the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge whereby Ram Gopal (Respondent)’s writ petition for setting aside his termination order and directing his consequent reinstatement, was allowed.
Findings of the Court:
Neither has it been pleaded nor is it apparent from the material on record that the Respondent was unable to approach the court of law in time on account of any social or financial disability. Had such been the case, he ought to have availed free legal aid and should have ventilated his grievances in a timely manner. Instead, he seems to be under the assumption that the termination order is illegal, that he consequently has a right to be reinstated, and that he can agitate the same at his own sweet-will.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends lack of factual and legal similarity between candidates — Respondent argues for parity as both were recruited and terminated under the same process. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Termination order was speaking — No parity exists as previous relief was based on equitable grounds in personam — Inordinate delay in filing writ petition. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 )
4. Equity acts in personam — Relief granted on equitable grounds to one cannot be claimed as parity by others — Laches bar discretionary writ remedies. (Para 13 , 16 , 18 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court orders set aside — Writ petition and contempt proceedings dismissed. (Para 20 )
6. Can a person seek parity with another who was granted relief on equitable grounds?
No. Equity acts in personam and not in rem. If relief was granted to a party based on unique equitable considerations, such as length of service, rather than a legal right, other similarly situated persons cannot claim parity. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. Does the principle of limitation strictly apply to writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution?
While limitation does not strictly apply, writ courts exercise discretionary jurisdiction and may refuse relief to those who approach the court after an unreasonable lapse of time or exhibit inordinate laches, as delay defeats equity. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. What is the distinction between judgments in rem and in personam regarding the extension of benefits to similarly situated employees?
Judgments in rem, often involving policy matters, obligate authorities to extend benefits to all similarly situated persons. Judgments in personam benefit only the parties involved; others seeking extension must prove their claim is not barred by laches or acquiescence. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. Uttar Pradesh Power Corp. Ltd. (hereinafter, "UPPCL") has preferred this appeal, assailing an order dated 29.04.2016 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) which in turn upheld the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge whereby Ram Gopal (Respondent)'s writ petition for setting aside his termination order and directing his consequent re-instatement, was allowed.
Factual Background
3. UPPCL conducted selections for certain Class IV positions of Junior Meter Tester & Repairer, Mate and Meter Coolie/Chaukidar and declared results on 31.08.1978 through an Office Memorandum. The Respondent emerged as one of the successful candidates for being appointed as Meter Cooli/Chaukidar. Owing to subsequent discovery of certain irregularities in the selection process, UPPCL cancelled these selections on 03.11.1978 and consequently terminated services of all appointees on 07.11.1978.
4. Shyam Behari Lal, another successful candidate whose services too had been terminated, promptly approached the jurisdictional High Court which allowed his writ petition on 26.10.1989 observing that no reasons had been assigned for the termination. UPPCL unsuccessfully filed an intra-court appeal, and thereafter approached this Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 7123 of 1993 (U.P. State Electricity Board and Others vs. Shyam Behari Lal). The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 22.11.1993 with an observation that the reason for termination was 'writ large' on the order itself, namely, "cancellation of result of selection of operating staff", and the matter was accordingly remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits.
5. Thereafter, a Division Bench of the High Court considered Shyam Behari Lal's case and held that though the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on merits, however, considering the peculiar circumstances wherein Shyam Behari Lal had already served the UPPCL for 17 years, rendering him jobless might be too harsh a consequence. The relevant operative part of the order dated 30.05.1997 reads as follows:
"In view of what has been discussed above, is true that the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, but in the peculiar circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the petitioners are continuing in service for last seventeen years, it would be too harsh to render him jobless at this stage. We would, therefore, only provide that the opposite parties may consider his continuance in service and take a suitable decision as may be thought appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case expeditiously." (emphasis supplied)
6. After the initial round of litigation in which Shyam Behari Lal had obtained relief from the High Court in 1989, the present Respondent also filed WP No. 7897 of 1990 in July, 1990, impugning the order dated 07.11.1978 terminating his services. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad summarily allowed the Respondent's writ petition on 05.04.2007 on the premise that the matter was "squarely covered" by the decision of the High Court dated 26.10.1989 in Shyam Behari Lal's case.
7. The aggrieved UPPCL preferred Special Appeal No. 643 of 2007 which was dismissed by a Division Bench vide the impugned order dated 29.04.2016. Although the Court noted that the order of 1989 relied upon by the learned Single Judge had been set-aside by this Court and during fresh consideration of the matter a co-ordinate Bench had held Shyam Behari Lal's case being devoid of any merit; yet it laid emphasis on the equitable considerations which were pressed into aid in Shyam Behari Lal's case for his resultant continuation in service. The Division Bench, thus, dismissed UPPCL's appeal and held as follows:
"The case of the respondent is similarly situated as his appointment pertains to the same selection and no reason has been assigned in the order of cancellation of appointment of the respondent. Therefore, learned Single
