Delay cannot be a sole ground for rejecting a writ application, especially in cases involving violations of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 29 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Seven persons claiming themselves engaged by the Ranchi University (now falling under Nilambar Pitambar University) came to the writ Court in W.P.(S) No.5282 of 2014 to challenge the order dated 19th June 2014 passed by the Registrar of the Nilambar Pitambar University.

2. By the aforesaid order, the writ petitioners were informed that the orders of regularization passed by the Ranchi University in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 attained finality and after lapse of about 19 years they could not have been accorded similar benefits. This was also a ground indicated in the aforesaid order that the Syndicate’s decision dated 20th October 2003 in pursuance of which the notification of regularization dated 29th December 2003 was issued attained finality and, therefore, a modification in the notification dated 29th December 2003 is not permissible in the year 2011; after lapse of 8 years. The Registrar of the Nilambar Pitambar University who is the respondent no.5 informed the writ petitioners that they had accepted the notification dated 29th December 2003 without any protest and now after a lapse of 8 years the issue cannot be reopened.

3. In the order dated 22nd December 2021, the writ Court held that there was no delay on the part of the writ petitioners to raise a claim based on parity and, that, the respondent-University made a hostile discrimination against them. The writ Court dealt with the rival contentions in the following manner :

“11. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that the impugned order as well as the main contention of the Respondent counsel is about delay and latches. Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court holds that this case requires interference for following reasons:

(i) The grounds of delay cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for the following reasons: -

(a) In the previous round of litigation, the Hon’ble High Court after hearing both the parties remanded the matter back to the Vice Chancellor and the representations were made pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ble Court and thereafter, the same could not have been rejected on the ground that it was made after 8 years which was in fact made after disposal of the writ application by the Hon’ble High Court.

(b) In the instant case, the petitioners have pleaded and established violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India and specifically pleaded and demonstrated discrimination by the respondents who had adopted a pick & choose policy and regularized the services of the employees who were juniors to the petitioners with effect from the prior date thereby, discriminating the petitioners.

(c) It is settled position of law that there is no bar under the law for entertaining the writ application which has been filed after delay and whenever there is an allegation of infringement of rights, delay cannot be a ground for rejecting the writ application. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 1, paras 26, 27, 29, 31 and 32, which read as under:

“26. In Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317, a Constitution Bench was invited to dismiss a petition filed under Article 32 on the ground of laches. The petitioner having approached the court after a delay of at least eight years, the Court held that barring a writ petition containing stale claims is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper discretion. There is no inviolable rule that whenever there is a delay, the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. After referring to Tilokchand Motichand and Rabindranath Bose, the Court held that the claim for enforcement of the fundamental right of equal opportunity under Article 16 cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of delay/laches etc. The Court also wen