NUSRAT ZAFAR Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.11.1991 of the respondent No. 1/Jamia Millia Islamia cancelling the selection process for the post of Production Manager. The impugned order dated 16.11.1991 reads as under:-

(2.) The impugned order is dated 16.11.1991 and this writ petition has been filed on 8.10.2002 i.e the impugned order has been challenged after around 10 and a half years. Though the Limitation Act, 1963 strictly does apply to a writ petition but principles of the Limitation Act apply for dismissing of writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches by invoking the limitation period under the Limitation Act. This is the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436.

(3.) I have had an occasion to examine this aspect of limitation in the judgment in a bunch of cases with lead case being W.P. (C) No. 7792/2015 titled as Ms. Preeti Sharma v. Ganga International School and Ors. decided on 19.1.2017: [(2017 (3) SLR 608 (Delhi)] . The relevant paras of this judgment in the case of Ms. Preeti Sharma (supra) are paras 6 to 8, and which paras read as under:-