THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY HOME DEPT., HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS Vs. SRI MOTHIRAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for issue of a Certiorari to quash Order, dated 20 -12 -2012, in OA.No.6762 of 2012 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal').

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition are that, respondent No.1 was selected as stipendiary constable. When he has applied for the said post, no criminal case was pending against him. However, as his ill luck would have it, he was one among about 30 persons against whom a Criminal Case was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 427, 326 read with 149 IPC. After he was provisionally selected, he was asked to send an attestation form, which contained the column wherein he shall disclose his involvement in Criminal Cases, if any. Respondent No.1 has evidently not filled in that column as a result of which he did not disclose pendency of the Criminal Case. However, thereafter, he was acquitted of the Criminal Case by Order, dated 29 -02 -2012, of respondent No.2. But, the provisional selection of respondent No.1 was cancelled on the ground that he has suppressed the fact of his involvement in the Criminal Case. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 has filed the above -mentioned OA, which was allowed by the Tribunal, by its Order, dated 20 -12 -2012.

(3.) At the outset, we need to observe that the Writ Petition suffers from unexplained laches. The only explanation that was offered in Paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition is that immediately after receipt of the order of the Tribunal, respondent No.2 has addressed letter, dated 03 -04 -2013, to the Government Pleader for Services (Andhra Pradesh) for opinion, but, no reply was received and subsequently, due to division of the State and other reasons, the Writ Petition could not be filed immediately. In our opinion, this explanation is wholly unconvincing and unacceptable. The division of the State has taken place with effect from 02.06.2014 and if the Government Pleader for Services had not responded for one and half years prior to the division, the petitioners were not expected to remain quiet. Even after the division has taken place with effect from 02 -06 -2014, the petitioners failed to approach this Court for nearly two years, for which no explanation whatsoever is offered. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone.