Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 2245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Sumit Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 3039 of 2021
Decided On : 08-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, Vinod Diwakar, Advocate, Vishal Kumar Singh, Advocate

Delay defeats equity and law favors the vigilant. The potential adverse impact on established systems and seniority can be a valid ground for dismissing a petition.

Headnote:
OBC Category - Challenge to Clause 3(iv) of letter dated 17th August, 2017 - SSC Examination, 2015 - W.P.(C) No.39210/2015 - Undertaking dated 14th December, 2015 - Coercion - Delay and Laches - Rota Quota System
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged Clause 3(iv) of a letter dated 17th August, 2017, seeking to be considered under OBC category and grant all consequential benefits. The petitioner had submitted two OBC certificates for consideration in OBC category and given an undertaking dated 14th December, 2015, stating that he will not claim any benefits under the OBC category. The court noted that the petition was barred by delay and laches as the examination and selection process was done in 2015.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's undertaking dated 14th December, 2015, and the delay in approaching the court were significant factors. It dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, stating that granting relief to the petitioner at this stage would adversely affect the rota quota system and the seniority of officers in CISF and Delhi Police.
Issues: Challenge to Clause 3(iv) of letter dated 17th August, 2017 - Consideration under OBC category - Delay and laches - Adverse impact on rota quota system and seniority
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that delay defeats equity and law favors the vigilant. It cited previous judgments to support the dismissal of the petition due to delay and laches. The potential adverse impact on the rota quota system and seniority of officers was also a crucial factor in the decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, highlighting the adverse effects that granting relief to the petitioner would have on the rota quota system and the seniority of officers in CISF and Delhi Police.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. - The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Clause 3(iv) of the letter dated 17th August, 2017 issued by respondent no.2 and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to be considered under OBC category and grant all consequential benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had qualified the mains SSC Examination, 2015 and submitted two OBC certificates dated 24th December, 2010 and 02nd December, 2015 for consideration in OBC category.

4. He further states that respondent no.2 refused to accept the two certificates on erroneous technical grounds. According to him, such rejection was illegal. He also states that a similarly placed candidates had been granted relief by the Kerala High Court in W.P.(C) No.39210/2015 vide JUDGMENT dated 20th January, 2016. He points out that a Special Leave Petition filed by the State was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 23rd January, 2017.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is barred by delay and laches as the examination and selection process was done in 2015. It is pertinent to mention that the other similarly placed candidate who had filed a W.P.(C) No.39210/2015 had approached the Kerala High Court in the year 2015 itself.

6. Further in the present case, the petitioner had given an undertaking dated 14th December, 2015 to the effect that he will not claim any benefit(s) under the OBC category. The said undertaking given by the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:-

UNDERTAKING
Subject: Rectt. of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFS, ASI IN CISF, Examination, 2015: Conduct of Interview regarding.

With reference to my candidature for the above mentioned examination, I Sumit Yadav Roll No. 30090/2010. Undertake that I had applied for this examination under OBC category but I am unable to submit the OBC certificate (original) in the prescribed proforma (as per Annexure-VII of the Notice) for Central Govt. Offices obtained from the competent authority within three years before the closing date of application form i.e. 02.05.2015, certificate issued up-to the 180 days from the closing date of application form. It means certificate issued from 03/05/2012 to 29/10/2015 will also be accepted by the commission. My age is within the age-limits as prescribed for UR candidates for the said examination.

It is, therefore, requested that my category for the said examination may be treated as U.R. i.e. (General).

I will not claim for OBC status. Decision taken by the Commission regarding my candidature will be acceptable to me.

Signature	sd/-
Name	Sumit Yadav
Roll No.	30090/2010
Date of Interview	14-12-2015

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid undertaking was given under coercion as he was the sole earning member in the family.

8. This Court is of the view that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the examination and selection procedure conducted in 2015 and if the undertaking dated 14th December, 2015 had been given by the petitioner under coercion, he should have approached the High Court in 2015 itself when the other similarly placed candidate had approached the High Court of Kerala or at least, immediately after the letter dated 17th August, 2017 had been issued to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Gopal,2020 SCCOnLineSC 101 has held that delay defeats equity and law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not stric

Click Here to Read the rest of this document