SUSHIL KUMAR YADUNATH JHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated January 24, 1985 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the appellant's writ petition on the ground of laches.

(2.) Having regard to the circumstances in which the writ petition was filed at the time when it was, the High Court, in our opinion, should have ignored the delay, and considered the matter on its merits.

(3.) The appellant was appointed on June 29, 1965 to the post of Post-Graduate Teacher in Hindi in a Central Schools Unit under the Ministry of Education, Government of India. The Central Schools Unit was converted into an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education and was described now as the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. The appellant was appointed on probation for a period of one year. It was stipulated that even after the probation was satisfactorily completed the services of the appellant could be terminated at any time without any reason being assigned on one month's notice or one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Although the appointment was to a temporary post, it was mentioned specifically that the Schools were of a permanent nature and therefore, it was unlikely that the employee's services would be terminated if his work and conduct was satisfactory. The appellant appears to have done well during the period of probation and his services were continued after the expiry of that period on June 29, 1966. He continued in that post for about three years. During that period he was posted at the Central School No. 2, Holiday Camp, Colaba, Bombay. Thereafter he was sent to raise another School, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Sardar Patel University, Anand (Gujarat). Subsequently he was posted at the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lonavala. According to the appellant, his work was greatly appreciated at each of his postings and he earned two increments during that period. On February 29, 1968, however, his appointment was terminated suddenly. The appellant made a representation against the termination of his services on March 8, 1968 and a few days later he was informed that an appointment letter was following. A fresh appointment with effect from June 24, 1968 was made and the appellant was specifically intimated that no benefit of the previous service rendered by him in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan would be admissible. The appellant was posted to the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Tambaram, Madras and thereafter to the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Srinagar. The appellant seems to have been rather distraught about the break in service between March 3, 1968, when his services were actually terminated, and June 24, 1968 when he entered upon his fresh appointment and requested the authorities that the break in service be condoned. The request was turned down and it was intimated that his personal behaviour during his early stint of appointment was found open to objection. The appellant. however, earned goodwill and high praise during subsequent years for the conscientious and dedicated work consistently put in by him. Successive and repeated communications were sent by his immediate superiors to the authorities detailing the high order of achievement shown by the appellant in his work and pressing that a lenient view be taken in regard to condoning the break in his service. He had been informed by the then Commissioner of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan that on the completion of three years of service his case could be reconsidered for condoning the break in service. In the hope that the assurance would be honoured. the appellant persistently requested that the continuity of his service may be maintained. The record before us sufficiently establishes that his work was marked by outstanding efficiency and devotion and that almost everywhere that he was posted he was not found lacking in dedication to his responsibilities. During his posting in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Central School in Kabul, the Indian Ambassador, it appears was so impressed by his work that in February 1983 he examined his case and found that the earlier termination of service had proceeded out of some personal misunderstanding, and that there was every reason for removing the break in service. The Government, however, expressed its helplessness in accepting the request on the ground that the existing Rules did not permit it. It was thereafter that the appellant, after obtaining permission to institute proceedings, filed a writ petition in the High Court.