HEMLATA SINGH Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Teacher in terms of the advertisement dated 12th June, 1998. The explanation for not approaching this Court earlier in the year 1998 when cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner is that the issue with regard to appointment of candidates belonging to the categories of OBC/SC/ST was pending before this Court and attained finality only in May, 2005 when a Division Bench of this Court rejected the review petition filed against its earlier order dated 15th December, 2000 passed in LPA 304/2000 as also rejected LPA No. 625/2002 in Kunwar Pal Singh's case on 13th May, 2005.

(2.) The respondents have filed replies and opposed the writ petition by taking a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on account of delay and latches in filing the same. The MCD in its affidavit has stated that the advertisement for the posts of Teacher was issued in June, 1998 by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and pursuant to the said advertisement the entire selection process except for the court cases pending in the court was concluded long before whereas the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner only in the month of September, 2005 i.e. after a gap of seven years from the date of the advertisement. Similarly, the respondent No.2, DSSSB has reiterated the said stand taken by the MCD in its affidavit by saying that the recruitment process is already finalized/closed and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hit by delay and latches.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner rebuts the aforesaid arguments by saying that the petitioner cannot be ousted on the ground of delay and latches and pursuant to the issue attaining finality as referred to hereinabove, a learned Single Judge of this Court had in fact allowed all the writ petitions pending in this Court by passing an order dated in 2005. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of this court in WP(C) No.6154/99 entitled ?Rejinder Prasad Vs. DSSSB? to state that even in that case, a writ petition preferred after three years was entertained by the court. He further submits that during the entire period from 1998 to 2005, the matter was kept in abeyance by the respondents and no appointments were made.