The doctrine of laches is not applicable where the petitioner has made representations regarding his non-promotion, which were not considered by the respondents, and where the non-consideration for promotion is based on a single punishment imposed ten years prior, which is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

1. This petition calls in question various orders of promotion passed by respondents at various stages. The first promotion order was passed on 18.10.1980. Subsequent promotion orders were passed on 18.12.1983, 12.6.1984, 5.11.85, 21.1.1986 and 9.4.1986. In all these orders some of the respondents 5 to 80 were working as conductors and all of them were Junior to the petitioner. Petitioner right from 18.10.80 was dropped. He went on making representations but the same yielded no result. Thus he filed the present petition on 22.08.1990 before this Court wherein orders of promotion passed, in so far as the same related to promotions of petitioners juniors, were challenged. The main ground of challenge was that the actions of the respondents were discriminatory and viotative of Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution.

2. Detailed counter has been filed wherein two fold defence has been taken:

1. that the petition is barred by laches;

2. that the petitioner having been visited with two punishments of fine on 24.07.70 and 08.10.1983 could not be considered as he was not eligible for promotion.

3. I want to place on record that according to the respondents version in the counter affidavit, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner at these two occasions was a fine of Rs. 30/- and Rs. 50/- respectively.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings. I propose to dispose of the point in controversy in the following manner: -

1-LACHES:

A motion can be barred by doctrine of laches if the petitioner have willfully slept over his right for a considerable period of time and allowed the impugned action to get perfected through its implementation. There is no prescribed period of limitation for filing a writ petition. However, courts have evolved this doctrine for placing an embargo on filing a writ petition after expiry of a considerable period of time. The object being to disentitle a seeker of the relief to dislodge an action which must have assumed finality, through its perfected execution. The doctrine, as such, does not have any mathematical formula in its armory to lay fetters on the discretionary powers of the Court. In matters before the courts of extra ordinary jurisdiction courts themselves have to consider as to what can be the practical approach which in the circumstances of the case just result in satisfying the ends of justice. This is how in one case higher courts hold that the doctrine will apply in the other, which may be having some distinct features, its application is not accepted. However, in every case the cardinal principle to be taken care of by the courts is to see as to whether or not the petitioner has willfully slept over his right The doctrine of laches emanates from doctrine of waiver because one who sleeps over his right will be presumed to have waived that right. A waiver for a considerable period of time estops the petitioner from raising the claim denovo. In my opinion this is the sum total of the doctrine of laches.

The Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others Vs. State of Maharastra and others, reported in AIR 1974 SC 259 clarified the position with regard to laches and powers of the Court. The rule saying that belated petitions should not be entertained, was held to be a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion and not a rule of law. The Apex court did dismiss the petition, having been filed after 10/12 years of the alleged omission A distinction was also made between ordinary writs and those alleging violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 16 of the constitution. It was held that right to equal opportunity in matters of service and employment could not be said to have been defeated by the doctrine of laches. Their lordships held as under:-

We do not think this contention should prevail with us. In the first place, it must be remembered that the rule which says that the court may not inquire into belated and stale claims is not a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document