TARA DEVI Vs. MUKHYA CHIKITSA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner was appointed as Nurse and Midwife vide order dated 13-2-90, which is contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 22nd April, 1993 and the impugned order ter minating the services of the petitioner, which is contained in Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition, reveals that the petitioner had contained the employment by producing the forget certificate of her qualification and she was not eligible. The petitioner has filed instant writ petition after the lapse of 3 years and 4 months from the date of passing of the impugned order. The first question to be considered by this Court is whether such an enquiry in exercise of extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required in such a stale claim.

(2.) IN the case of Aflatoon v. Lt. Gover nor of Delhi, A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 2077, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has observed that a stale claim cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore \. V. K. Kangan, A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 2190 holding that the party must approach the Court within reasonable time. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has considered this issue in the case of M/s. Tilok Chand Moti Chand and others v. KB. Munshi, A. I. R. 1990 S. C. 898, and held that the petition filed at a belated stage cannot be entertained.

(3.) IN the case of Union of INdia and others v. Athose Lop Fernandes and others, A. I. R. 1977 Goa 14, it was held that the period of limitation prescribed by the IN dian Limitation Act, 1963 is not strictly applicable in cases ofwrit jurisdiction. The Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Teja Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, A. I. R. 1982 P and H169 has taken the view that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure etc. may be made applicable in the writ juris diction.