A claim to challenge an appointment barred by laches cannot be revived by the subsequent rejection of a belated representation, as equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.

Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Challenge to appointment - An appointment challenged after a substantial delay (more than 9 years) is hit by the doctrine of laches - Mere filing of a representation and the subsequent rejection thereof does not create a fresh cause of action to challenge an appointment that was already barred by delay. (Para 4)

(B) Equity - Maxim vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt - Equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The appellant and another candidate applied for a post. The other candidate was appointed to the post. The appellant did not challenge this appointment for more than nine years. Subsequently, the appellant made a representation and filed a writ petition, which was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The authorities later rejected the representation. The appellant then filed another writ petition challenging the rejection of the representation, which was also dismissed by the Single Judge.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appeal lacked merit. The appellant first challenged the appointment after a delay of more than nine years. The rejection of a representation does not provide a fresh cause of action to challenge the original appointment when the claim is already stale.

Issues: Whether the rejection of a representation creates a fresh cause of action to challenge an appointment after an inordinate delay.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the maxim "vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt," ruling that equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber. A claim barred by laches cannot be revived simply because a belated representation was rejected.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Ajit Singh; CJ.:--

Mr. K. Paul, Mr. J.P. Chauhan and Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Heard on admission.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.9.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No. 5423/2016.

Pursuant to advertisement dated 19.8.97, the appellant and respondent No. 5 applied for the post of Child Development Project Officer. After the selection process, respondent No. 5 was appointed on 23.7.2003. The appellant did not challenge the appointment of respondent No. 5 for more than 9 years. He then made representation dated 29.5.2012 and thereafter filed WP(C) No. 5944/2012 which the learned Single Judge dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2012 on the ground of delay and laches. The learned Single Judge, however, directed the authorities to decide the representation of appellant. The authorities have rejected the said representation vide order 23.4.2013. The appellant then again challenged the said order dated 23.4.2013 by filing WP(C) 5423/2016, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed summarily. Admittedly, the appellant for the first time challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 after more than 9 years by making a representation and then filing WP(C) No. 5944/2012. Merely because his representation has been dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2013, the same will not give him fresh cause of action to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 5. The maxim vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, meaning equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering is very much applicable in this case.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2016 Supreme(Gau) 716

GAUHATI HIGH COURTAjit Singh, Manojit Bhuyan, JJ.Pradyut Chandra Nath - AppellantVersusState of Assam & 4 Ors. - RespondentWA 412/2016Decided On : 05-12-2016

A claim to challenge an appointment barred by laches cannot be revived by the subsequent rejection of a belated representation, as equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.

Judicial Analysis

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Ajit Singh, Manojit Bhuyan, JJ.
Pradyut Chandra Nath - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam & 4 Ors. - Respondent
WA 412/2016
Decided On : 05-12-2016