The discretionary power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and the legal principles related to delay and laches in service matters.

ORDER :

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the appointment order dated 13.8.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4/Superintending Engineer, PWD, Ambikapur Division in respect of respondent No.5 who secured less marks in comparison to the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.9.2013 (Annexure P/2) published by Public Works Department, Ambikapur Division for various posts such as Field Assistant, Peon, Gardener, Telephone Attendant, the petitioner submitted his application form for the post of Field Assistant vide Annexure P/3. In the merit list prepared by the respondent authorities, the name of respondent No.5 found place at Sl.No.3 and the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sl.No.8 as the merit list was prepared only on the basis of marks obtained in maths subject whereas it was to be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained in Class-12th examination. Hence, the petitioner moved an application in this regard before the Collector, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja but it was of no avail. On 13.8.2015 impugned appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No.5 vide Annexure P/1. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted an application before the Collector, Distt. Surguja for making an inquiry into the matter of appointment of respondent No.5 as the same has been done contrary to the rules and terms and conditions of the advertisement but nothing has been done on his application. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

“1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned appointment order dated 13.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent No.4 Superintending Engineer PWD Ambikapur Division, Ambikapur, in respect of respondent no.5.

2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment in the post of field Assistant on the basis of merits and marks obtained in 12th class.

3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned appointment order dated 13.8.2015 is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government for direct recruitment and also contrary to the advertisement issued by the Public Works Department, Ambikapur. There is no such condition in the advertisement that preference will be given to those candidates who got higher marks in a particular subject i.e. Mathematics and the only requirement was that the candidates should have passed Higher Secondary Examination in Maths group. The petitioner’s percentage in Class-12th is higher than the percentage obtained by respondent No.5 in Class-12th and as such, the petitioner ought to have been appointed on the post of Field Assistant. Though after publication of the merit list, the petitioner had moved application before the Collector against the irregularities being committed by the respondent authorities but no action was taken thereon. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of the relief claimed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches because the impugned appointment order in favour of respondent No.5 was issued on 13.8.2015 which has been challenged by the petitioner on 22.1.2018 without offering any reasonable explanation for such an inordinate delay. Since respondent No.5 has duly joined the post of Field Assistant within the given time of 15 days and also at the relevant point of time, the petitioner never raised any objection regarding appointment of respondent No.5, after the selection process being over, he ca