Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nikhil S. Kariel, J.
Ram Narayan Prasad Gupta S/o Saryuprasad Gupta - Appellant
Vs.
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 7197 of 2024
Decided On : 01-05-2024
Promotion - Unwillingness - Orders dated 12.09.2012, 24.01.2013, and 22.03.2024 - [Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 12(2)(b), Section 12(2)(c)] - The court discussed the petitioner's unwillingness to accept a promotion from Sub-Inspector, Fire to Inspector, Fire, and the subsequent cancellation of the promotion. The court also considered the rejection of the petitioner's representations for restoration of the promotion. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 12(2)(b) and Section 12(2)(c) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, which govern promotions and seniority in the CISF. The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's specific undertaking to forgo the promotion and not claim seniority, as well as the principle that representations would not revive a dead cause of action.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was promoted from Sub-Inspector, Fire to Inspector, Fire but expressed unwillingness to accept the promotion due to selection for deployment at UN Peace Keeping Force in Haiti. The promotion was subsequently cancelled, and the petitioner's representations for restoration of the promotion were rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition frivolous both on merits and on the ground of explanation for delay. It held that the petitioner voluntarily gave up the promotion and cannot now claim it back. The court also emphasized that the petition was filed after a gross delay of more than 11-12 years and that the petitioner's reliance on a policy from 2005 could not revive a dead cause.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's unwillingness to accept a promotion, the rejection of representations for restoration of the promotion, and the delay in filing the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's specific undertaking to forgo the promotion and not claim seniority, the principle that representations would not revive a dead cause of action, and the gross delay of more than 11-12 years in filing the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected by the court due to the petitioner's voluntary unwillingness to accept the promotion, the gross delay in filing the petition, and the inability of the petitioner to revive a dead cause of action based on a policy from 2005.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Girish K. Patel for the petitioner, who by way of this petition challenges orders dated 12.09.2012, 24.01.2013 and 22.03.2024, whereby the promotion issued to the petitioner is cancelled and representations there-against were rejected.
2. It would appear that the petitioner had been promoted vide an order dated 11.05.2012 from the post of Sub-Inspector, Fire to the post of Inspector, Fire. It appears that upon the promotion being given, the petitioner was required to give his willingness for accepting the promotional post, more particularly it appears that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was selected for joining the UN Peace Keeping Force in Haiti. It appears that vide communication dated 18.06.2012, the petitioner has given his unwillingness for accepting the promotion to the rank of Inspector and whereas in the communication of unwillingness the petitioner has clearly mentioned as under :
3. Based upon such unwillingness, the promotion given to the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector, Fire to the Inspector, Fire had been cancelled vide order dated 12.09.2012. It appears that the petitioner had thereafter upon joining the Peace Keeping Force at Haiti, submitted a representation for restoration of his promotion and whereas vide a communication dated 24.01.2013, the same had been rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner thereafter again made a representation to the respondents for the promotion to be restored and whereas vide a communication dated 22.07.2013, the respondents had rejected such representation, more particularly submitting that an earlier representation which had been submitted by the petitioner had been disposed of on 24.01.2013, and whereas the petitioner was directed not to make representations on issues which had already been decided. It appears that the petitioner was promoted as Inspector on 01.09.2014. It also appears that the petitioner had submitted representations intermittently. Thereafter, on 09.01.2024, the petitioner had submitted a legal notice through his learned Advocate, more particularly again seeking for grant of deemed date from the date the petitioner was first promoted. The said application/notice had been rejected by the respondents vide their communication dated 22.03.2024. It would thus appear that the actual order impugned would be only the order dated 12.09.2012, whereby promotion given to the petitioner had been cancelled and possibly the order dated 24.01.2013, whereby the representation against cancellation of promotion had been rejected. The order dated 22.03.2024, clearly appears to be a ruse, just to come out of the limitation of 11-12 years, which the petitioner would face, if a petition was filed challenging the order or the year 2012-2013. As it is, in the order dated 22.03.2024, the respondents have merely reiterated that since in the order dated 24.01.2013, the respondents have already rejected the representation of the present petir, therefore nothing else was required to be done and whereas the order dated 24.01.2013 has been reproduced in the order dated 22.03.2024. Thus, essentially it is only the order dated 12.09.2012 which is under challenge be
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner cannot revive a dead cause of action through representations after a gross delay, and specific undertakings made by the petitione....
Delay in challenging promotions can bar relief; timely action is crucial in promotion matters.
Delay and latches defeat equity, and the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court must be invoked within a reasonable time.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and laches can lead to a waiver of rights, and a petition filed after a significant delay without reasonable cause may be rejected by th....
Delay and laches can bar relief in writ petitions, especially when the petitioner fails to assert rights in a timely manner, rendering the case devoid of merits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
