Delay in filing a writ petition can bar relief, particularly when it affects equity and the rights of others.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 226 - Writ petition challenging refusal to consider petitioner under OBC category based on delayed application - Petition was barred by delay and laches as the selection process concluded in 2015, and the petitioner had given an undertaking not to claim OBC benefits. The court emphasized the principle that delay defeats equity, as reiterated in Supreme Court rulings. (Paras 5, 10)

(B) Equity - Principle that rights cannot be enforced after unreasonable lapses or delays is crucial in writ actions - The court ruled against reliving petitioner's claim due to significant time elapsed since the original grievance. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner qualified the SSC Examination in 2015, submitted OBC certificates, which were rejected on technical grounds. He had previously agreed to not claim OBC status, alleging coercion.

Findings of Court:
Court dismissed the writ petition based on delay in raising the grievance, which would adversely impact the seniority of other officers.

Issues: Whether delay and laches bar the petition and the validity of the undertakings made under coercion.

Ratio Decidendi: Similar cases support that delay and laches preclude relief; equity favors vigilant claims.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges obc eligibility clause. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments contesting the rejection of obc certificates. (Para 4 , 7)
3. delay and laches justify dismissal of writ petition. (Para 5 , 8)
4. repercussions of granting obc present status. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.: (Oral)--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/order 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 SCC OnLine SC 101 has held that delay defeats equity and law favours the vigilant and n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document