IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that delayed claims and acceptance of benefits inconsistent with the claimed status may be barred by the principles of waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel.

JUDGMENT :

PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9325 of 2017.

2. The appellant – original petitioner preferred the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court praying for issuance of appropriate directions to respondent authorities for including the name of the petitioner in the final seniority list of Assistant T.D.O./Assistant Estate Officer for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.03.2014 published on 28.02.2017 in Scheduled Tribe Category.

3. The Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties held that the claim is put forward by the appellant – original petitioner after 30 years of service and that too on the basis of certificate issued to his son. Further, it was observed that the relief claimed by the petitioner is barred by the principals of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel. Therefore, in such context, the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioner, were not granted and the petition was dismissed, and these directions are under challenge in the present Appeal.

4. The factual matrix which led to filing of the petition is that the petitioner was appointed on 07.05.1988 as Sub-Inspector in Estate Department of the respondent Corporation. Initially the appointment was given in Scheduled Tribe category. On 14.09.1993, a circular was issued inviting objections to the provisional seniority list of the Sub-Inspector Estate/TDO Sub-Inspectors. Pursuant to the said circular, one of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe category raised objection that the petitioner cannot be treated in the category of Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant thereto and after considering the explanation and considering all the aspects, the name of petitioner was shown in the general category in the final seniority list of Sub-Inspector T.D.O./Estate Department.

5. On 15.05.2006, during the time of granting the promotion, the petitioner was not given promotion as departmental inquiry was pending. On 04.05.2011, the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was completed and petitioner was inflicted penalty of censure/warning. Pursuant to completion of departmental inquiry, petitioner was given promotion as Estate/T.D.O. Inspector. Such promotion was given from 28.09.2011 considering the petitioner as general category candidate.

6. On 12.10.2015, provisional merit list of Inspector working with T.D.O./Estate Department was published. Pursuant to such provisional merit list, the objections were invited. Petitioner submitted objections that he be considered as Scheduled Tribe candidate from the date of his appointment i.e. from 07.05.1988. After completing necessary formal exercise, Respondent Corporation published final seniority list for the post of Assistant T.D.O./Estate Officer for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.03.2014 considering petitioner as general category candidate. Petitioner communicated to Respondent to consider him as a Scheduled Tribe candidate from the date of his appointment i.e. from 07.05.1988. Such aspect was not considered by the Respondent Corporation which led to filing of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayers made by the petitioner which led to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

7. We have heard Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla appearing for the appellant has contended that the petitioner was appointed on 07.05.1988 as Sub-Inspector in the Estate Department by the respondent Corporation in the Scheduled Tribe category. It was contended by Mr. Shukla that after duly scrutinizing the documents, the petitioner was given appointment in Scheduled Tribe category. To substantiate his arguments, Mr. Shukla has relied on Staff Selection Committee waiting list wherein petitioner was shown in the cat