Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
Smt.K.Sulochana – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15757 of 2019
Decided on : 03-05-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri P.V.Raghuram
For the Respondents: Sri K.Narsi Reddy Standing
IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate delay and suppression of facts in seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution bar the petitioner from obtaining the desired remedy.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition seeking Mandamus for appointment as Shramik - Petitioner claimed discrimination as similarly placed candidate was appointed - Court found no merit due to delay in filing and suppression of facts regarding previous orders - Dismissed the petition. (Paras 10, 19, 23)
(B) Delay and Laches - The court emphasized that inordinate delay in seeking relief under Article 226 cannot be excused, and the petitioner must approach the court with clean hands, disclosing all material facts. (Paras 17, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought appointment as Shramik after a similarly placed candidate was appointed, claiming discrimination, but had delayed her application and suppressed facts regarding a previous Writ Appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not participate in the selection process and had delayed her application, thus dismissing the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment as Shramik despite her delay and previous court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner's delay and suppression of facts barred her from relief, emphasizing the importance of timely action in legal proceedings.
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking Mandamus, for the following relief:
“…to declare the action of the respondents in particular respondent No.3 in not giving any appointment order to the writ petitioner on par with one G.Anitha Rani who is working as helper/shramik in the APSRTC Chittoor Depot No 2 though there is an order from this Honourable Court to also appoint the writ petitioner herein as Shramik vide notification No R3/68423/2011HRDdt 23122011 issued by the Respondent no 1 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to forthwith give appointment to the petitioner as shramik/helper in any depots of Chittoor district by considering her representations or else to give any suitable appointment/posts in the Respondent Organisation………..”
2. The facts of the case, as projected in Writ Affidavit in brief, are as follows:
a. Respondent/APSRTC, vide Proceedings No.R3/684 (23/2011-HRD) dated 23.12.2011, called for applications from eligible persons for the post of Shramik. Petitioner passed Class-X in 1999 and did ITI Diesel Mechanic course from the Government ITI Chittoor, in 2003 and did two years apprenticeship in Chittoor Depot. Petitioner and one Ms. Anitha Rani applied to the post of Shramik, under the Notification in 2011, since Diesel Mechanic trade was sufficient to apply for the said post. Respondent No.2 did not receive applications of the petitioner and Ms.Anitha Rani on the ground that they were women and the said post is not meant for women.
b. The case of the petitioner is that the notification is silent about the fact that it is meant only for men. It is further stated that women can perform any duty including the harsh and cumbersome duties. Ventilating this grievance, petitioner and Ms. Anitha Rani filed W.P. No. 3348 of 2012 before the then Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein an interim stay was granted. Since the order of the Court was not implemented, a contempt case was filed. Vide a common order dated 27.06.2013, W.P. was allowed, directing the respondent/APSRTC to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Shramik.
c. As per the order of this Court, Ms.Anitha Rani was given employment as Shramik and she joined as such in Mechanic Garage Chittoor-II Depot, vide order dated 25.11.2013, and has also got promotion, whereas, the case of the petitioner was not considered.
d. The petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities, but they did not consider the same. The Petitioner having two children is not able to eke out livelihood and her husband is a school bus driver. Therefore, petitioner filed the present W.P. seeking indulgence of this Court for appointment as Shramik in respondent - APSRTC.
e. Hence W.P.
3. The key averments stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos., 2 and 3 are;
a. Petitioner and Ms. Anitha Rani are similarly placed persons, but the Petitioner has not attended the medical examination though a letter was addressed to her residential address.
b. Vide Circular No.PD-55/2010, dated 21.10.2010 and the recruitment regulations for the post of Shramiks, the candidate should possess minimum qualification of ITI with Diesel Mechanic Trade with Class-VIII qualification. Vide Lr.No.R3/684(23)/2010-HRD, dated 02.11.2010 of the Chief Manager (HRD) referring to Circular No.37/2003, dated 26.05.2003, it was communicated to not recruit women candidates for the post of Shramiks by direct recruitment, in lieu of the directions received from the Government. Therefore, female candidates were not called for direct recruitment of Shramik post.
c. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Sri C. Somasekhar is a Driver in APSRTC, Airport Depot, with Staff No.556522.
d. As per the orders of this Court, though a call letter was sent, the petitioner did not attend the medical examination and therefore has not participated in the selection process, as per the procedure lai
