Delay and laches bar relief in writ petitions; legal rights must be asserted without unreasonable delay to avoid affecting third-party rights.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (ORAL)

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

a. "That a writ or writs of mandamus or any other appropriate order, or direction be issued to the effect that;

b. That a fresh inquiry to be instituted on the impugned actions of the Respondents;

c. That a fair and thorough investigation to be initiated on the allegation of tampering with answers which was promised to the Petitioner but was never complied by the Respondents and upon any concrete/affirmative findings, appropriate remedy to be instituted in favour of the Petitioner;

d. That both compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded for the loss incurred by the Petitioner; and

e. Pass any order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. Subsequently, an application being CM. APPL. 53230/2022, was filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the writ petition including addition of the following prayers:

"a. Issue a writ or writs in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order and/ or direction to the Respondents to perform their duties and;

b. Direct the Respondents to fulfil their legal duty, as a quasi- judicial body, to conduct a sincere hearing on the grievances of the Petitioner;

c. Direct the Respondents and its agents to comply on their promises made to the Petitioner after hearing her grievances, viz.,

i) Setting up of a Vigilance Committee to inspect about her complains and inquire about the tampering of her answer sheet;

ii) Instituting her appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depo) in Food Corporation of India in case of any affirmative findings by the Respondents and/ or their agents;

iii) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case for which the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

3. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by rejection of her candidature for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot) in Food Corporation of India, the Respondents herein.

4. Written examination for selection to the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot) was conducted on 04.10.2015. Petitioner participated in the selection process, but was unsuccessful in getting an appointment. It is the case of the Petitioner that after the written examination, she was allowed to take the question paper for tallying the marks obtained after the answer key was published. On comparing the answers in the answer key with her own selected options, according to the Petitioner, her total marks should have been around 97, which was above the qualifying criteria/cut-off marks 92. However, the name of the Petitioner did not figure in the name of selected candidates.

5. By a letter dated 08.01.2015 addressed to the CPIO, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, Petitioner sought reasons for her non-selection and was informed by a reply dated 15.01.2015 that her application had been forwarded to the concerned authority.

6. It is averred in the petition that Petitioner thereafter filed an RTI application seeking information on her marks and reasons for non- selection but was informed that reasons for non-selection do not come under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Even on filing an Appeal in 2016, Petitioner was unsuccessful in getting any response. Another RTI application was filed by the Petitioner on 17.05.2016 seeking copy of the OMR sheet and the marks obtained. Petitioner was assured that her application had been forwarded to the Recruiting Agency, however, even after filing two more RTI applications, P