SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to grant seniority on the post of lekhpal as well as other consequential benefits to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1994 i.e. the date on which petitioner has been declared qualified.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner failed in the lekhpal training examination and after that he had applied for scrutiny and after scrutiny he was declared successful in the examination on 1.1.1994 but he was not informed by the department concerned about the declaration of his result of the scrutiny. Vide order dated 15.09.2009 it was informed that he was qualified for the post of lekhpal by the Commissioner and Secretary of the Board of Revenue, which is appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and after competition training he joined on the post of lekhpal and was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 22.3.2016 which is appended as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that since the result was declared in the year 1994 but he was not informed by the concerned to the petitioner and he was not asked to join the said post of lekhpal in spite of the repeated request and approach to the opposite parties. Since he was qualified and completed the said training in the year 1994 but due to the inaction of the opposite parties he could not join the said post in the year 1994 and he was entitled for appointment since 1994 on the said post. Due to the inaction of the opposite parties his entire seniority and other consequential benefits to the petitioner was affected and he has been placed junior than the other persons qualified in the said training, who had joined earlier before the joining of the petitioner in the same selection process. The representation given by the petitioner has also not been adjudicated by the opposite parties yet and no reason for not informing the petitioner about the result in the 1994 has been disclosed by the opposite parties.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner joined services in the year 2009 and confirmed vide order dated 22.3.2016 and he has not chosen to file writ petition earlier. The writ petition is hit by delay and laches, no satisfactory explanation has been given in the writ petition for condoning the delay and laches, therefore, the instant writ petition may be dismissed merely on the ground of delay and laches.