KANKARI J PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - original petitioner has challenged in this appeal the judgement and order dtd.5/5/1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram ; S.K. Keshote,J.) dismissing his Special Civil Application No.3574 of 1985.

(2.) The appellant - original petitioner was born on 4/7/1951. On 10/7/1975 he was appointed as Work Charge Tracer but later-on i.e. on 27/10/1975, his services were terminated only on the ground that he was found to be surplus. Later-on, by order dtd.17/10/1977, he was once again appointed as Tracer. Later-on he was selected on the post of Additional Assistant Engineer and promoted as such by an order dtd.5/2/1982 (Annexure-A to the petition) and relieved from the post on 15/2/1982 for joining new assessment, but on the next day i.e. on 16/2/1982, the order of promotion to the higher post of Additional Assistant Engineer was cancelled on the ground of age bar. Since then he was working once again on the lower post of Tracer. However, for the reasons best known to him, he approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.3574 of 1985 only on 12/7/1985 i.e. after a period of almost three and half years of his reversion. The learned Single Judge of this Court by his judgement and order dtd.5/5/1997 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of gross delay and laches of three and half years and also on merits. The same is challenged in this appeal along with Civil Application No.10810 of 1997 for stay. It seems that no favourable order is passed in the said Civil Application so far in favour of the applicant - appellant. Be that as it may.

(3.) Learned counsel Shri Rana for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge was wrong in dismissing the petition on the ground of gross delay and laches and also on merits. Mr.Rana submitted that the judgement was kept reserved by the learned Single Judge after hearing the matter. He submitted that if he was given an opportunity to explain the delay of three and half years in filing the writ petition, then he would have certainly explained. He also submitted that once the petition was admitted, later on another learned Single Judge cannot dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and that too when no even formal objection was raised by the other side in the matter. In support of his submissions Mr.Rana has placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court:-