Full Text
Translation output
40#
% 07.04.2010
Present: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aslam Ahmad, Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Mr. Babit Singh Jamwal and Mr. Raghav Mathur, counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Atul Nanda and Mr. Gaurav Gupta, counsel for respondent.
W.PCC) No.2252/2010
*
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks holding of the CAT r entrance test conducted by the respondents on 28.11.2009 to
/
8.12.2009 and the re-test conducted on 30.1.2010and 31.1.2010 as unfair, inequitable thereby quashing the same.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, counsel for the petitioner contends that the CAT exam, Phase-I was unreliable as it ifdffered from technical glitches and he also points out the admission of the respondent about the same in a press release by the respondent (Annexure P-8, pg 84). Counsel further contends that the respondent had decided to conduct the CAT re-test for those candidates who suffered due to the technical problems and devised a seven point criteria for being eligible for appearing in the re-test scheduled for January, 2010. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners
2010:DHC:10667 w
' "k
V were also the victims of the technical faults but were not called for the re-test and hence that there is no logical basis or format on which this seven point criteria has been drafted.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The CAT exam was conducted online for the first time in December, 2009 and it indisputably suffered from technical glitches affecting some candidates. Being aware of the same, the r^pondents decided to conduct a re-rest in January, 2010. The grievai)Ge of the petitioners is that they were also affected by the same technical problems but were not called for a re-test.
By a press release, the respondents announced conducting a re-test scheduled for 30 & 31 January, 2010 and devised a seven point criteria for those eligible for the re-test, •file petitioners have now approached this court in April, 2010 when the result of the re-test has already been declared, that they were also victimized and should have been eligible for the re-test. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that there is a delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this court, which delay the counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain as to why did they not ,at the first opportune time, when they did not get notified for the re-test, approach this court for relief. It is quite evident that the petitioners were complacent and were watching everything happen sitting on the fence.
A writ is a discretionary remedy and this court would exercise its jurisdiction only upon .being satisfied that it is equitable to do so, delay being a relevant factor. Delay defeats equity and this court would not assist the tardy as in the present case, much water has flown and permitting the belated resort n^y cause confusion and bring in train new injustices. p. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, this court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction in entertaining this petition on the ground of delay and laches and the same is hereby dismissed.
Jpril 07, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
% 07.04.2010
Present: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aslam Ahmad, Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Mr. Babit Singh Jamwal and Mr. Raghav Mathur, counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Atul Nanda and Mr. Gaurav Gupta, counsel for respondent.
W.PCC) No.2252/2010
*
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks holding of the CAT r entrance test conducted by the respondents on 28.11.2009 to
/
8.12.2009 and the re-test conducted on 30.1.2010and 31.1.2010 as unfair, inequitable thereby quashing the same.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, counsel for the petitioner contends that the CAT exam, Phase-I was unreliable as it ifdffered from technical glitches and he also points out the admission of the respondent about the same in a press release by the respondent (Annexure P-8, pg 84). Counsel further contends that the respondent had decided to conduct the CAT re-test for those candidates who suffered due to the technical problems and devised a seven point criteria for being eligible for appearing in the re-test scheduled for January, 2010. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners
2010:DHC:10667 w
' "k
V were also the victims of the technical faults but were not called for the re-test and hence that there is no logical basis or format on which this seven point criteria has been drafted.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The CAT exam was conducted online for the first time in December, 2009 and it indisputably suffered from technical glitches affecting some candidates. Being aware of the same, the r^pondents decided to conduct a re-rest in January, 2010. The grievai)Ge of the petitioners is that they were also affected by the same technical problems but were not called for a re-test.
By a press release, the respondents announced conducting a re-test scheduled for 30 & 31 January, 2010 and devised a seven point criteria for those eligible for the re-test, •file petitioners have now approached this court in April, 2010 when the result of the re-test has already been declared, that they were also victimized and should have been eligible for the re-test. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that there is a delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this court, which delay the counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain as to why did they not ,at the first opportune time, when they did not get notified for the re-test, approach this court for relief. It is quite evident that the petitioners were complacent and were watching everything happen sitting on the fence.
A writ is a discretionary remedy and this court would exercise its jurisdiction only upon .being satisfied that it is equitable to do so, delay being a relevant factor. Delay defeats equity and this court would not assist the tardy as in the present case, much water has flown and permitting the belated resort n^y cause confusion and bring in train new injustices. p. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, this court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction in entertaining this petition on the ground of delay and laches and the same is hereby dismissed.
Jpril 07, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
JUDGMENT