The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will assess the vigilance of the petitioner in invoking the court's jurisdiction and procuring necessary information, and will consider policy decisions of the State in determining claims for compensation due to alleged laches on the part of the State authority.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 6515 of 2022

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 14 days in preferring the instant L.P.A.

2. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the interlocutory application and having no objection on the part of the Respondent State, the delay of 14 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

3. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 6515 of 2022, stands allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 260 of 2022

4. The appeal is under Clause(X) of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5850 of 2009, whereby and where under the prayer for a direction upon the respondents to compensate the writ petitioner due to the alleged laches committed on the part of the respondents in not appointing the writ petitioner, has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.

5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the application is required to be enumerated, reads as under:

The writ petition had been filed for the following reliefs: (i) “For issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the light of Annexure-16, by which it was amply clear that the petitioner was successful in the written examination if his answer book was duly corrected, (ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondent-authorities to show cause as to why they had filed false affidavit in W.P. (S) No. 6111 of 2005 wherein they have expressly mentioned that the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the written examination contrary to the fact that the answer book of the petitioner was not corrected properly and the perusal of the same shows that the petitioner would have been successful if his answer book was duly corrected.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument had submitted that no appointment can be made so far as petitioner is concerned considering his date of birth and submitted that the petitioner was entitled for compensation from the respondents as the petitioner had suffered due to wrong committed by the respondents.

7. The learned counsel had relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 to submit that the petitioner was entitled for compensation as the petitioner had suffered on account of illegality committed by the respondents in the matter of marking the answer sheets of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel had submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved before this court in W.P. (S) No. 6111 of 2005 which was also subject matter of appeal in L.P.A. No. 45 of 2006. He referred to the order dated 15.12.2005 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6111 of 2005 to submit that it had been recorded that the petitioner did not succeed in the written test and therefore was not declared successful in the result published in the newspaper and that the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right and consequently the writ petition was dismissed. The appeal being L.P.A. No. 45 of 2006 was also dismissed vide order dated 29.06.2006 wherein the argument of the petitioner that there was certain error of record was also rejected.

9. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner has obtained certain information under Right to Information Act whereby a copy of the answer sheets of the petitioner has been handed over to the petitioner and from perusal of the answer sheets learned counsel submitted that the marking had not been properly done/calculated. He submitted that had the marking been properly done then the petitioner would have been selected and on account of such error in marking of the answer sheets of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and he is required to be duly compensated.

10. It