The importance of timely action and the impact of delay on seeking relief, as well as the need for evidence to support claims.

ORDER :

Shri Jitendra Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Ankur Modi, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4/State.

Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs : -

“(i) That, the impugned action of the Respondent No. 5 declining to send petitioner’s name for screening under the garb of the so-called resignation dated 8-9-2000 and further treating the petitioner to be removed employee and his so called removal and further not considering his name for absorption may kindly be declared to be illegal, null and void.

(ii) That, consequently the respondent No. 1 to 4 may kindly be directed to consider the name of the petitioner for absorption as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. the date of taking-over Jyoti Higher Secondary School, Ganesh Pura, Morena along with other employees who have already absorbed treating the petitioner to be continued in service w.e.f. 1-7-1984 and grant all consequential benefits like seniority, arrear of pay etc.

(iii) That, the respondents No. 1 to 4 be also directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to suppression of material facts from the screening committee and preparation of forged and fabricated resignation of the petitioner and take suitable penal action against the Respondent No. 5 who prepared forged resignation of the petitioner just to deny the benefits of absorption.

(iv) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other suitable order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier he was working as an Assistant Teacher in Jyoti Higher Secondary School, Ganesh Pura, Morena. The school was taken over by the State Government, however, the name of the petitioner was not recommended, as an illegal demand was made by the Education Society and it was shown that the petitioner had resigned in the year 2000 and thus, he has been denied absorption.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the moot question for consideration was that whether the petitioner, who was earlier working as an Assistant Teacher in Jyoti Higher Secondary School, had already submitted his resignation prior to taking over of school or not and since the petitioner had raised a dispute with regard to correctness of the resignation, therefore, an enquiry was got conducted and it was found that the resignation in question bears the signature of the petitioner.

5. The respondent No. 5 has also submitted his reply. Apart from taking other pleas, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent No. 5 with regard to delay and laches, as the petitioner has submitted his resignation in the year 2000, whereas the present petition has been filed in the year 2012. The entire administration of the school was already handed over to the State Government in the year 2002 itself and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever worked in the school after tendering his resignation.

6. In reply to the submissions made by the counsel for respondents, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in fact the respondent No. 5 used to keep the blank documents after obtaining signatures of the employees and the said blank document has been utilized for preparing forged resignation.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Before considering the merits of the case, this Court feels appropriate to consider the preliminary objection with regard to delay and laches.

9. According to the allegations, the petitioner had submitted his resignation on 8-9-2000. It appears that later on in the year 2002 the State Government directed for taking over the grant-in-aid schools along with employees. The said order was withdrawn by the State Government at a subsequent stage, which was challenged by the aggrieved persons by filing a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed and the ord