SHRIKANT ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the appointment of 17 judicial officers, who are presently holding the post in the cadre of District Judge and are respondent nos.5 to 21. The petitioner himself is in the cadre of District Judge and holding the post of District Judge - I, Pakur. The petitioner has challenged the order of appointment of those 17 judicial officers after a delay of more than 11 years. The explanation given by the petitioner for not challenging the above appointment orders is that the petitioner came to know about the legal position from the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pravas Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2011 (2) JLJR 207 in the year 2011. It is also submitted that in Pravas Kumar Singh's case also, there was objection of delay but that was not entertained by this Court and the writ petition was not only entertained but was also allowed and the appointments made had been set aside and that too in the cadre of District Judge. It is further submitted that writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay when the appointment appears to be absolutely contrary to law.

(3.) WE considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in service and holding the post of judicial officer and that too in the cadre of District Judge. His contention that he could know the legal position from the judgment rendered in the case of Pravas Kumar Singh is rejected and cannot be treated bona fide contention because of the reason that the petitioner's counsel himself has pointed out that prior to Pravas Kumar Singh 'scase, even in the case of Rakhi Ray & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 637, the legal position was settled, which is the legal issue sought to be raised in this petition. Not only this, there are other earlier judgments which are also laying down the same legal position. Furthermore, the plea and explanation are false as is apparent from the pleadings in writ petition that the rules and the absence of mentioning of vacancies in the advertisement were known to the petitioner from the year 2001 itself. Therefore, because of false plea also, petitioner's petition deserves to be dismissed. If one is permitted to file writ petition after inordinate dealy on the ground that he has became wise after reading the decision of Supreme Court or High Court then such plea cannot be considered to be bona fide for the reason that the litigant must be vigilant and shall base his claim on law. If petitioner's contention is analysed, then it leads to that if others would not have approached the court and would not have obtained the judgment, the petitioner would not have challenged those appointments and he was satisfied with the appointments. Such a plea virtually is a plea based on ignorance of law also, whereas law is that every body is supposed to know the law and ignorance of law is no excuse. At this place, it will be relevant to mention that petitioner is a member of Higher Judicial Service and is taking the plea of ignorance of law prior to coming of judgment of Pravas Kumar Singh (supra). Respondents are in service since last more than 11 years and if now they are removed, then there will be injustice to all who have already rendered service for a decade and whose appointments were not challenged by anybody and this will also disturb the settled position in the service cadre. Not only this, these are the posts which can be manned by only judicial officers and not by the officers who can come on deputation as is available in other services so as to fill up the urgent vacancies. The petitioner also has not disclosed that when he got appointment - whether prior to the respondents or after the appointment of the respondents.