Back
2013 Supreme(J&K) 409
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Hasnain Massodi,Janak Raj Kotwal, JJ.
State Of J&K & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
Ashrat ul Nisa & Ors. -Resopndent
LPA No.212-2012, LPA No.213-2012 & LPA No.208-2012
Decided On : 06-06-2013
N. H. Shah, M. A. Qayoom.
Delay and latches in invoking writ jurisdiction should not be encouraged, as delay defeats equity. The discretionary remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked after a long and unexplained delay.
Headnote:
Delay and Latches - Selection Process - Advertisement Notice No.DAP/J-226 dated 5. 3. 2003 - SWP Nos.1795/2003, 1863/2003 and 1382/2004 - SWP No.766/2012 - SWP No.554/2012 - SWP No.896/2012 - 6.10.2009 judgment - LPA 212/2012 - LPA 213/2012 - LPA 208/2012
Fact of the Case:
The case involved appeals against judgments and orders passed in three writ petitions related to the selection process for the posts of Prosecuting Officer in Jammu and Kashmir Police. The first round of litigation challenged the selection process, resulting in a judgment and order dated 6.10.2009. Subsequent writ petitions were filed by candidates who were not appointed despite their performance in the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent writ petitions suffered from delay and latches, and the private respondents did not have a reasonable justification for approaching the court after an inordinate delay of over nine years. The court held that the delay in invoking writ jurisdiction could not be ignored and dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of delay and latches.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the delay and latches in filing the subsequent writ petitions, the entitlement of the private respondents to similar relief as granted in the earlier litigation, and the applicability of the 6.10.2009 judgment to the subsequent petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delay in approaching the court after an inordinate delay should not be encouraged, as delay defeats equity. It held that the discretionary remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked after a long and unexplained delay. The court also highlighted that the benefit accruing to earlier petitioners under the 6.10.2009 judgment was not automatically available to the private respondents, and they were not entitled to relief despite the delay.
Final Decision: The court accepted the appeals and set aside the judgments and orders passed in the subsequent writ petitions, dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and latches. The connected CMPs in the entire appeals were dismissed.
2. LPA No.212/2012 is directed against the judgment and order dated 19. 09. 2012 passed by a Id. Single Judge of this Court in SWP No.766/2012. LPA No.208/2012 is directed against the judgment and order dated 26. 03. 2012 passed by a Id. Single Judge in SWP No.554/2012 and LPA No.213/2012 is directed against judgment and order dated 06. 06. 2012 passed by a Id. Single Judge in SWP No. 896/2012. The impugned judgments and order passed in SWP No.766/2012 and SWP No.554/2012 are based upon a common judgment and order dated 6.10.2009 earlier passed by a Id. Single Judge of this Court in SWP Nos.1795/2003, 1863/2003 and 1382/2004 (for short the earlier writs) whereas the impugned judgment and order passed in SWP No.896/2012 is an offshoot of the judgment and order passed in SWP No.554/2012.
3. Heard. We have perused the record.
4. Background facts, which are common to all the three appeals, briefly, are these;
1st. round of litigation.
For back the official respondents vide Advertisement Notice No.DAP/J-226 dated 5. 3. 2003 sought candidature of eligible candidates for the posts of Prosecuting Officer in Jammu and Kashmir Police. Selection process was completed. The selection so made came to be challenged by the aggrieved candidates in the earlier writs, which were disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 06. 10. 2009. The judgment and order dated 06.10.2009 rendered by Id. writ Court would show that selection process was challenged by the petitioners on various grounds inter alia that private respondents of those writ petitions did not possess the requisite qualification. Ld. writ Court while disposing of those writ petitions observed inter alia;
"the result sheet produced would show that the petitioners have obtained very high marks in the process. Petitioner No.l namely Sheikh Bilal Mohi-ud-din has obtained 63 marks, petitioner No.2 Syed Anwar Ahmed Rizivi has obtained 60 marks and petitioner No. 3 Abdul Aziz Zaindari has obtained 53".
"the respondents have acted in a most illegal manner in excluding the petitioners from the process and appointed ineligible candidates on the post".
"the appointment of the respondents has been made in the year 2003. They are working on the post for the last 6 years. In these circumstances I find it would be very harsh to quash their selection and appointment on present post".
5. Ld. Writ Court, therefore, directed the official respondents that they shall;
"consider the appointment of the petitioners also against the posts available and pass appropriate orders in this behalf within a period of six weeks from the date this order is served on the respondents".
6. The direction of the Writ Court, appears, came to be complied with by the official respondents and first round of litigation, thus, came to an end.
2nd. round of litigation.
SWP No.766/2012
This writ petition came to be filed by 15 candidates in the year 2012. They (herein private respondents) contended that they had applied for and taken part in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 5/3/2003. They were called for the interview and they had fared well. They are "figuring in the merit list with higher merit than those candidates who have been appointed by the respondents". The respondents while implementing the judgment of Writ Court dated 6.10.2009, were required to offer appointment to them also. However, respondents did not do so and thereby violated their legal, fundamental and constitutional rights. The respondents did not appoint them as Prosecuting Officers, pursuant to judgment dated 6.10.2009 despite various representation in this regard having been submitted by them. They, therefore, sought following relief from the Id. Writ Court;
"a- To issue orders of appointment in favour of the petitioners also against the post of prosecuting officer in the same manner, in which orders of appointment have been issued by them in favour of several oth
