JUDGMENT

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

(i) That, the impugned order dated 25.06.2014 kindly be set aside.

(ii) That, the respondent be directed issue appointment to the petitioner for Samvida Shala Shiksha Verg-II.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the fact and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.06.2014 to claim that the petitioner was entitled for appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Class - II, but she has been denied her legitimate claim. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made successive representations.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The petitioner has approached after eight long years. It is well established principle of law that successive representations would not give rise to a fresh cause of action. Even according to the petitioner, last representation was made in the year 2017. Much water must have flown under the bridge. The delay and laces defeats equity. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. C. Girija and others reported in (2019) 15 SCC 633 has held as under:

16. This Court had occasion to consider the question of cause of action in reference to grievances pertaining to service matters. This Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining [C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 961] had occasion to consider the case where an employee was terminated and after decades, he filed a representation, which was decided. After decision of the representation, he filed an OA in the Tribunal, which was entertained and order was passed. In the above context, in para 9, following has been held : (SCC pp. 122-23)

'9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex- employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.'

17. This Court again in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar [Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1126] on belated representation laid down following, which is extracted below : (SCC p. 66, para 15)

'15. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction.

Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.'

The Supreme