Stay vigilant or lose rights: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bins CRPF officer’s delayed seniority plea

Justice Sanjay Dhar noted that a writ court cannot brush aside delay and laches lightly.

“When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and he acquiesces to the situation, he cannot be heard after a couple of years to challenge the impugned action of the employer,” the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said on May 8.

Underscoring that the petitioner was making frequent representations for voicing his grievance against the fixation of his seniority rights from 2002, the order noted that the question that arises for determination was whether merely making representations to the department can renew the cause of action in favour of an aggrieved litigant.

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court added that the review petitioner appeared to be aware of his seniority position in 2002 itself, and he continued to make representations with the respondents right from then.

Case of delay in appointment

The petitioner was selected for the 30th batch of assistant commandants in 1996, but his appointment was delayed due to the late arrival of his police verification report.

According to the petitioner, in 1997, he had appeared in the competitive examination held by the respondents for selection to the post of CPO (Assistant Commandant). He came to be selected in the 30th batch of CPOs in 1996, but his appointment order was delayed by the department as it could not obtain verification/antecedent report from the relevant authorities on time. As a result, the petitioner could not undergo the requisite training with the 30th batch.

He was offered a spot with the 32nd batch, and the petitioner requested a six-month extension due to his mother’s illness and eventually completed his training with the 33rd batch. He later sought to have his seniority adjusted to reflect his original selection batch, arguing that the department’s inaction created a “perpetual cause of action”.

‘Can’t cure delay and laches’

• Via communication dated September 7, 2009, the representation made by the review petitioner before the respondents was rejected, and he was informed that his seniority had been properly fixed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8(b)(ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, read with the Department of Personnel & Training’s office memorandums.
• After that, he approached the Jharkhand High Court by virtue of a petition challenging the communication in the year 2011.
• The matter, however, did not rest here. It appears that it is not a case where the petitioner had come to know about the fixation of his seniority only in September, 2009, when his representation was rejected.
• But he was in knowledge of the position of his seniority right from the day the same was fixed in terms of the office order dated January 24, 2002.
• The law on the matter is very clear. Filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation.
• The issue of delay and laches is an important factor in the exercise of discretionary relief under Article 226 (high courts’ power to issue writs) of the Constitution.
• The representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation cannot cure the delay and laches in filing the writ petition.
• The making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay.
• Merely because his representation was responded to by the respondents in 2009 would not give a fresh cause to the petitioner to file the writ petition.

Court’s findings

• Even if the petitioner had approached the Jharkhand High Court in 2011, which is about nine years after his seniority was fixed, his resort to the jurisdiction was grossly belated.
• A writ court cannot brush aside delay and laches lightly, particularly when, during the interregnum, the situation has changed, and the rights have been crystallised to the prejudice of the litigant approaching the court belatedly.
• By the time the review petitioner approached the Court, the rights of the officers, whose seniority had been fixed above him, had already been crystallised, and the petitioner, without impleading such officers as parties to the writ petition, could not have taken a belated resort to the writ jurisdiction of the court.
• It was submitted that it was only in 2009 that the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents, which gave him cause to file a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court.
• The review petitioner argued that the writ court erred by stating that he approached the court only in 2017, while overlooking that he had already moved the Jharkhand High Court earlier.
• The court noted that the Jharkhand High Court’s order dismissing the writ petition mentioned that it had been filed in 2011.
• Thus, there is no delay or laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition, it was argued.