Undue delay in legal proceedings and failure to pursue remedies timely can preclude relief in matters concerning compassionate appointments.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--This is a writ petition, whereby the following substantive reliefs are sought:

"a. Pass appropriate writs, orders and/or directions particularly in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector with consequential benefits;

b. Pass appropriate writs, orders and/or directions particularly in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.09.2011 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 3446/2011."

2. The record shows that the appellant was offered appointment on compassionate grounds as Assistant Sanitary Inspector with the earlier avatar of North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), on 12.09.1994.

2.1. The appointment was, however, subject to certain conditions; one of the conditions being that the petitioner would obtain a Diploma in Sanitation, within two years, albeit from a recognized institution.

2.2. Admittedly, the petitioner could not obtain the necessary qualification, within the timeframe provided in the order of appointment dated 12.09.1994. The petitioner avers that the necessary qualification was obtained by him in and about 26.08.1997. This resulted in the petitioner being asked to go home. The petitioner claims that he was not permitted to join his post on 01.12.1997.

2.3. The reason why the petitioner was prevented from joining his post was the issuance of the office order dated 29.07.1997, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

2.4. In this office order dated 29.07.1997, it is clearly stated that the petitioner's services had been terminated "forthwith", as he had failed to pass and produce a Diploma Certificate in Sanitation within the stipulated timeframe as indicated at the time of his appointment to the subject post.

2.5. The petitioner claims that the aforesaid office order was not served upon him and, therefore, it is this uncertainty that impelled him to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in 2011. This action of the petitioner was registered as O.A. No. 3446/2011. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A., via order dated 27.09.2011.

2.6. The petitioner claims that he obtained the office order dated 29.07.1997 whereby his services were terminated, when he accessed the Right to Information (RTI) route. According to the petitioner, a copy of the office order dated 29.07.1997 was obtained by him on 27.11.2012.

2.7. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner did not take recourse to any legal proceedings. The only step the petitioner took was that he had, according to him, got his advocate to issue a legal notice dated 28.07.2020 to the respondents.

3. We have heard Mr Anant Agarwal, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, at some length and have also perused the record.

3.1. The impediment in the way of the petitioner is, clearly, the long delay and laches. The petitioner was given appointment on compassionate grounds, subject to the condition that he had to obtain a Diploma in Sanitation. For this purpose, the period fixed in the appointment order dated 12.09.1994 was two years.

3.2. Admittedly, the requisite qualification was obtained by the petitioner, as noticed above, after the timeframe was over, and in the interregnum, the impugned order dated 29.07.1997 was passed terminating his services.

3.3. To our minds, if the petitioner had a tenable case, he should have immediately taken recourse to a remedy, as, even according to him, although the office order dated 29.07.1997 was not served upon him, he was not allowed to join his post on 01.12.1997. This action of the respondents