LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus C. GIRIJA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 131 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. C. GIRIJA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1577 of 2019) FEBRUARY 13, 2019 [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.] Service law: Promotion – Belated representation – Notification inviting applications for filling up of 05 posts under 30% LDCE quota (04 unreserved and 01 reserved for SC) – Declaration of Panel on 09.01.2001 – Applicant-general category candidate seeking inclusion of her name in the Panel for promotion as APO – Submission of representation by appellant on 25.09.2007 seeking inclusion of her name in the panel – Representation rejected – However, direction by the tribunal and the High Court for inclusion of the name of the applicant in the panel – On appeal, held: Claim of the applicant for inclusion of her name in the panel, was raked up by her for the first time on 25.09.2007, after more than 06 and half years – Claim became stale by that time and filing of representation will not give any fresh cause of action – Thus, mere fact that representation was replied by the Railways on 27.12.2007, a stale claim would not become a live claim – After participating in subsequent selections under 30% quota and being declared unsuccessful, by mere filing representation on 25.09.2007 with regard to selection made in 2001, the delay and laches shall not be wiped out – Tribunal and the High Court ought not to have entertained the stale claim of the applicant – As regards the issue that under 30% quota of LDCE, all the 05 vacancies ought to have been made unreserved and notification dated 14.10.1999 making 04 vacancies unreserved and 01 vacancy reserved for SC was illegal, the explanation by the Railway was a plausible explanation, which was not such as to give a cause for interference by the tribunal and the High Court – Delay and laches. Allowing the appeals and disposing of the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 The claim of the applicant for inclusion of her name in the panel, which was issued on 09.01.2001 and for the first time was raked up by her, by filing representation on [2019] 2 S.C.R. 131 131 A B C D E F G H 132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R. 25.09.2007, i.e., after more than 06 and half years. The claim of inclusion in the panel had become stale by that time and filing of representation will not give any fresh cause of action. Thus, mere fact that representation was replied by Railways on 27.12.2007, a stale claim shall not become a live claim. Both tribunal and High Court did not advert to this important aspect of the matter. Furthermore, after declaration of panel on 09.01.2001, there were further selection under 30% promotion by LDCE quota, in which the applicant participated. In selection held in 2005 she participated and was declared unsuccessful. With regard to her non-inclusion in panel in 2005 selection, she also filed O.A. before the tribunal, which was dismissed. After participating in subsequent selections under 30% quota and being declared unsuccessful, by mere filing representation on 27.09.2007 with regard to selection made in 2001, the delay and laches shall not be wiped out.[Para 16][142-F-H, 143-A-B] 1.2 The applicant was well aware that under 30% LDCE quota, out of 05 vacancies, 04 are unreserved and 01 is reserved, which was circulated by notification dated 14.10.1999. She applied against the said bifurcated vacancies and was interviewed on 08.01.2001, panel of which was declared on 09.01.2001 and promotion was made on the same day. She having participated in the selection for promotion under 30% LDCE quota and the bifurcation of the vacancies being part of the process of selection, it was not open for her to challenge the bifurcation of vacancies into general and reserved after taking a chance to get selected. Thus, tribunal and the High Court ought not to have entertained the stale claim of the applicant. [Paras 17, 18][143-B-C, 146-A-B] C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Another (2008) 10 SCC 115 : [2008] 14 SCR 634; Union of India and Others v. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59 : [2009] 16 SCR 249; State of Uttaranchal and Another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others (2013) 12 SCC 179 : [2013] 9 SCR 609; P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152 : [1975] 2 SCR 356; Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of Bihar and Others (2017) 4 SCC 357 : [2016] 8 SCR 815 – referred to. A B C D E F G H 133 2.1 The tribunal and the High Court both observed that any vacancy coming after the relevant period
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.