RUMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre Kulah, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sh. R.R. Rahi, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4, that the petitioner did not avail the alternative remedy of appeal available to him and further that the writ petition is highly belated and deserves to be rejected on this short ground.

(2.) The interviews for the post of Anganwari worker were held in August, 2007 and respondent No. 4 was appointed in the same month as Anganwari worker. Her appointment was challenged by the present petitioner before respondent No. 3, which complaint was rejected on 19.07.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected on 4.12.2008. Still not satisfied the petitioner filed CWP No. 2934 of 2008 which was heard alongwith other matters and disposed of on 17.5.2010. The case was remanded to the first authority to decide the same afresh. Thereafter the petitioner again filed a representation in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur and the same was again rejected on 16.7.2011. Since the appointment of the respondent was prior to the amendment of the rules the petitioner had the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner within 15 days thereafter. The petitioner did not avail this opportunity but filed the present writ petition on 4th April, 2012. The main issue is whether the petition is barred by the principle of delay and laches and also can a party be allowed to urge that because the limitation of filing the appeal has expired the writ petition should be entertained. It is a well settled law that there is no limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition. A writ Court is not only a Court of law but also a Court of equity. By now the law is well established that in case there is undue delay or laches in filing the petition, the blameworthy conduct of the person in approaching the writ Court after great delay may disentitle him for grant of such discretionary relief.

(3.) In Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Prosper Armstrong,1874 5 PC 221, Sir Barnes Peacock in a very erudite manner laid down the following principles:--