GOPAL DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. NM Hazarika, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. N Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 1.2.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5532/2012 and other analogous cases. The learned Single Judge having taken into consideration all aspects has arrived at the conclusion that the claim as put forth by the petitioners cannot be entertained in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there is such a long delay of 13 years in seeking the relief. In that regard, the learned Single Judge has also taken note that the case of the petitioners cannot be considered as they are fence-sitters seeking to take the benefit of another order without availing their remedy, which is not permissible.

(3.) The brief facts are that the appellants herein were before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition claiming that they had participated in the selection process in response to the advertisement dated 23.8.98 published in the local daily for filling up of different posts in the Irrigation Department, Tezpur Division. The appellants claimed that they had taken part in the selection process and were accordingly selected. It was also contended that they were subsequently appointed through the orders dated 8.10.99 but they were not permitted to work thereafter. In that circumstance the appellants had contended that they are entitled to the benefits, more particularly, since this Court through its order dated 4.9.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 5580/2002 had considered a similar situation and the benefit had been granted. The learned Single Judge having taken into consideration the said aspect of the matter and also having taken note of the fact that the earlier writ petition was disposed of on 4.9.2009 and the appellants are presently seeking to take advantage of the same in the year 2012 and in that light since the cause of action had arisen to the appellants in the year 1999, was of the opinion that the benefit as available to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5580/2002 would not be admissible to the appellants when there is unexplained delay and laches of 13 years. It is in that light, the writ petition was dismissed.