GHULAM RASOOL LONE versus STATE OF J & K & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 16-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 591 
') 
GHULAM RASOOL LONE 
A 
.:;~ 
v . 
STATE OF J & K & ORS. 
(SLP ( C ) No. 14126 of 2009) 
JULY 16, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
~ 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Illegal 
promotion of employee junior to petitioner upon relaxing 
Rules - Similar relief sought by another employee - Grant c 
of promotion and order attaining finality - Said relief sought 
by petitioner after 13 years - Set aside by High Court on the 
ground of delay and /aches - Interference with - Held: Not 
> 
called for~ Article 14 is a positive concept - Equality clause 
must be enforced in legality and not illegality - Person who 
D 
claims equity must enforce his claim within a reasonable time 
- Court may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction' on the ground 
of delay and /aches - Employee cannot be granted promotion 
out of the way as a result whereof the rights of third parties 
are affected - Public interest as also general administration E 
must be kept in mind - Delayllaches - Equity. 
' 
HR was illegally promoted to the post of sub-
-
inspector upon relaxing the prescribed Rules in 1987. 
Subsequently AR filed writ petition seeking similar F 
treatment. He was granted promotion and the writ petition 
filed by him attained finality. Meanwhile, Maharaj Krishan 
and others filed writ petition for promotion to the post of 
sub-inspector. Single Judge of High Court allowed the 
writ petition. The said order was upheld by this Court. In 
2000, the instant petitioner who was senior to HR filed 
G 
~ 
/ 
-
writ petition seeking similar relief and the same was 
allowed. Respondent-State filed appeal which was 
allowed. Hence the present SLP. 
-
591 
H 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court 
r 
HELD: 1.1. Keeping in view the equal protection 
/ -
clause contained in Article 14 as also Article 16 of the 
Constitution of India, all the employees should be treated 
B equall!'· Equality clause, however, must be enforced in 
legality and not illegality. Article 14 is a positive concept. 
The Constitution does not envisage enforcement of the 
equality clause where a person has got an undue benefit 
by reason of an illegal act. [Paras 11 and 12] [597-G-H; 
• 
c 
598-A-B] 
1.2. The Court in a given case may be inclined to 
pass similar order as has been done in the earlier case 
on the basis of equality or otherwise. The discretionary 
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may, 
D however, be denied on the ground of delay and laches. 
• 
It is now well settled that who claims equity must enforce 
his claim within a reasonable time. [Paras 13 and 14] [598-
D-E] 
E 
Govt. of WB. v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347 - relied 
on. 
Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 2 SCC 589; 
New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 
• 
278; VirenderChaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. (2009) 
-
F 1 SCC 297 and S.S. Batu v. State of Kera/a (2009) 2 SCC 
479, referred to. 
2.1. No particulars had been placed before the High 
Court either in the instant case as also in the case of 
G Maharaj Krishan with regard to the power of the State 
and/or competent authority to relax the Rules. In absence 
of such details, there is no other option but to proceed 
~ 
#' 
on the basis that the promotion of HR was illegal. [Para 
10] [597-F-G] 
H 
2.2. It is one thing to say that the Letters Patent 
-
GHULAM RASOOL LONE v. STATE OF J & K & 
593 
~ . 
ORS . 
, 
Appeal was not maintainable but it is another thing to say 
A 
that although the same was maintainable but the Division 
Bench should not have exercised its jurisdiction. [Para 
16] [600-F-G] 
2.3. While considering the question of delay and 
B 
laches on the part of the petitioner, the court must also 
consider the effect thereof. Prom~tion of HR was effected 
( 
in the year 1987. AR filed his writ petition immediately 
after the promotion was granted. He, therefore, was not 
guilty of any delay in ventilating his grievances. The c 
petitioner waited till AR was in fact promoted. He did not 
consider it necessary either to join him or to file a separate 
-
writ petition immediately thereafter, although even 
-
according to him, AR was junior to him. Therefore, the 
Division Bench rightly opined that the petitioner was 
D 
• 
sitting on the fence. [Para 18] [601-A-C] 
2.4. If at this late juncture the petitioner is directed to 
be promoted to the post of sub-inspector even above AR 
the senior

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.