Indrajeetsingh v. Union of India & Anr

Delhi High Court · 27 Apr 2018 · 2018:DHC:9014-DB
Hima Kohli; Rekha Palli
W.P.(C) 5696/2017
2018:DHC:9014-DB
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging a Railway Protection Force selection process due to gross delay and laches, declining to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
WJXC) 5696/2017 Petitioners
INDRAJEETSINGH
Respondents UNION OF j^ajan Sabharwal, Advocate.
• S'STAKOTrAMtOK .
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.,
VERSUS
^ a a.^
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Through: Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 11702/20n^ Petitioners' SANJAY AND ORS.
Through; Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.
VERSUS
j ^ union ofINDIA AND ANR. ••••, Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate.
CORAM: r
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
27.04.2018 • . ^
ORDER

1. The petitioners, who had applied to the respondents for appointment to the post ofConstables in Railway Protection Force /Railway Protection Special Force in terms of the.Employment Notice No.01/2011, have approached this Court with agrievance that they were eligible for bemg appointed, having qualified the requisite tests and having cleared the medical examination and therefore the entire selection process be declared as null and void. Paee 1 of[2] W.P.(C) 5696/2017 2018:DHC:9014-DB b

2. We may note that pursuant to the Employment Notice No.01/2011 the results ofthe examination were declared sometime in Novernber, 2014 and appointments to.the subject post were made by the respondents thereafter. Apreliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that the present petitions are hopelessly barred by delay and laches, having been filed after over three years, with no explanation for the said delay. 3- Mr. Chhibber, learned counsel for the petitioners states that in the year 2014, the petitioners had filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court, which was disposed of on 28.04.2015, with directions to the petitioners to submit their representations to the respondents within six weeks and for the respondents to consider the same and pass speaking orders.

4. Admittedly, speaking orders were passed by the respondents in the month of May/June-2015, rejecting the representations of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners did not seek legal recourse for overtwo years. We are therefore inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned counsels for the respondents that the present petitions that question a selection process, which concluded in November, 2014, are highly belated. We decline to exercise the discretion vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed on the ground of gross delay and laches. hima kohli, j REKhII^Si,j APRIL 27, 2018/na jZ