AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought relief to direct the respondents to declare them as having passed in the year 2010 and to issue mark -sheets to the petitioners by showing them as passed in the course i.e. Diploma in Education in 2010.

(2.) This relief is founded on the assertion that the petitioners had appeared in the concerned examination in Part -I in the year 2008 and thereafter in Part -II in the year 2009. They were wrongly shown as absent during the said examination and which has been made the basis to deny the relief to the petitioners. The petitioners, however, made this grievance to the Respondent No.2 for the first time in June, 2013, and thereafter again in December, 2013. After filing of the representation in June, 2013, the petitioners rushed to this Court and filed the present writ petition on 26th June, 2013. The petitioners have relied on the Rules of 2010 in support of the relief claimed by them.

(3.) The respondents by filing reply -affidavit have specifically denied the fact that the petitioners had appeared in the concerned examination. According to respondent No.2, who had conducted the examination in question, the petitioners were marked as absent as they did not appear in Theory Papers and some of the petitioners in Practical Papers. Further, the petitioners had appeared in the examination conducted prior to coming into force of Rules of 2010 and, therefore, were not entitled to base their argument on the basis of those Rules, which have no application to the fact situation of the present case. More importantly, according to the respondents, this Court ought to decline to entertain this petition, which has been filed after expiry of three years from the date when the cause of action first arose. In other words, the petition suffers from laches and unexplained delay.