A writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay and laches, as well as for the failure to implead necessary parties whose rights are directly affected by the challenged order.

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

* * * * *

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to appointment list of five candidates, which was made on the basis of recommendation dated 27.02.2018 by Screening Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner died during service on 23.01.2002 and after his demise, mother of petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment. Vide order dated 06.02.2017 the petitioner was directed to submit certain documents and an application. Out of 80 persons, five candidates were selected for compassionate appointment. The petitioner has challenged the list of recommendation of five candidates in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was more meritorious and by ignoring him, the others are given appointment. He, therefore, prays that present writ petition be allowed and the appointment list of the five candidates be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contends that the Screening Committee on the basis of criteria and after considering the number of vacancies available under compassionate quota for appointment selected five out of 80 candidates.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance.

6. A perusal of the file shows that petitioner moved application before the respondents after receipt of letter dated 06.02.2017.

7. As per the scheme for compassionate appointment, the appointment could be granted only against 5% of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group (C) including erstwhile Group (D) posts recruitment in a recruitment year. The scheme is attached as Annexure R-1 with the written statement filed by the respondents. Column 21 of the same shows that compassionate appointment can be made only upto 5% of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in Group (C) including erstwhile Group (D) posts recruitment in a recruitment year.

8. Further, reply filed by respondents shows that application of the petitioner was put for consideration before Screening Committee, who on the basis of criteria evolved considered and did not find the petitioner fit and recruited five out of 80 candidates, who applied.

9. The petitioner is asking for quashing of appointment list of five candidates dated 27.02.2018 by filing the writ petition in the year 2022 i.e. after four years and that too without impleading the five candidates whose appointment is being challenged in the present writ petition.

10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others , 2024(15) SCC 215 held as under:-

“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.

10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be g