IMPORTANT POINT
Rights established in a selection process cannot be denied due to delay, especially when similar candidates are granted relief, ensuring equality under Article 14.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court for challenging the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the respondent-Board by which the representation of petitioner has been rejected only on the ground of delay and laches, and with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of petitioner pursuant to her selection in the process held on 31.03.2011.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Cantonment Board started the process for supplying three vacancies on the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School by issuing the advertisement on 24.06.2010. Petitioner, being eligible, offered her candidature for the said post. The written examination was conducted on 15.03.2011 wherein petitioner scored 78 out of 100 marks, and she was on the top of select/merit list.

4. Unfortunately, on certain complaints, the entire selection process was cancelled by respondent-Cantonment Board vide its order dated 12.05.2011. Two candidates, who ranked lower to petitioner, challenged the order dated 12.05.2011 by filing WPSS No.1027 of 2011 ‘Mohd. Kaleem and another v. Cantonment Board, Roorkee’. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 15.05.2013 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of cancellation of selection process dated 12.05.2011 passed by the respondent-Cantonment Board. The said order dated 15.05.2013, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court was carried in appeal by filing Special Appeal No.345 of 2013 (Cantonment Board v. Mohd. Kaleem and another) which met with the fate of dismissal. Thereafter, SLP (C) No.4370 of 2019 (Cantonment Board v. Mohd. Kaleem & another) was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Cantonment Board, which also met with the same fate. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge attained finality.

5. After the closure of Court proceedings, as stated hereinabove, the respondent-Cantonment Board gave appointment to Mohd. Kaleem and Siddharth Kapoor who were placed at Serial Nos.2 and 3 in the select/merit list and secured lesser marks than the petitioner, but for the reasons best known to the Board, petitioner has not been given the benefit of earlier litigation.

6. Petitioner, when came to know about the aforesaid developments, moved this Court by filing WPSS No.355 of 2020 (Rezy Jain v. Cantonment Board, Roorkee Cantt). The said writ petition, purely on the ground of laches, was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by reason of order dated 27.02.2020, but a liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in Board by making a representation which was directed to be decided in accordance with law.

7. The petitioner accordingly moved representation ventilating her grievance which has been turned down vide order dated 02.07.2021 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.14 to the petition), merely on the ground of delay and laches ignoring the fact that she was on the top of merit/select list. In this backdrop, petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-Cantonment Board wherein it is mainly stated that the petitioner, sitting at the fence for approximately a decade, cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own laches and further, she cannot be permitted to rake up a stale issue at such a belated stage. It is also stated that the post in question is not lying vacant at present.

9. Petitioner filed her rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-Cantonment Board thereby denying the averments made in the said affidavit and also reiterating the averments of the writ petition.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the entire material available on record.

11. It is contended by learned