“Law Does Not Permit One To Sleep & Rise Like A Phoenix”- Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Plea Against Cancellation Of Appointment In Judicial Branch
The Punjab and Haryana High Court was hearing a Writ Petition of some Judiciary aspirants whose appointment as the PCS (Judicial Branch) Officers, was cancelled.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the cancellation of appointment of some Judiciary aspirants as PCS (Judicial Branch) Officers based on a selection made in the year 2001.
The Court said that the delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant and that the law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel remarked, “Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances, delay and laches may not be fatal, but in most circumstances inordinate delay would invite disaster for the litigant, who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant –– a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, firstly, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time’, secondly, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.”
The Bench added that the delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis and the Doctrine of Laches is not merely a technical stratagem available to a Respondent but an axiomatic corollary of equity and justice.
Advocate Anurag Arora represented the Petitioners while Senior DAG Salil Sabhlok and Senior Advocate Munisha Gandhi represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
In 2002, 21 posts of PCS (Judicial Branch) Officers were advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) and the Petitioners applied in pursuance of the advertisement. They got selected and their appointment letters were issued. In 2002, the Registrar General of the High Court conveyed to the Petitioners and other selectees that the recruitment/appointment letters made in favour of the Petitioners were terminated on account of a recruitment scam having surfaced. The said cancellation Order communicated vide letter, was challenged before the High Court by some of the selectees and the same was dismissed.
The Petitioners pleaded that they were not the Writ Petitioners in that Writ Petition. The Petitioners along with others faced trial in respect of the FIR registered under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and were then acquitted by the Sessions Court in 2016. Thereafter, they made representations to the Additional Chief Secretary (Department of Home Affairs and Justice), Government of Punjab, pleading that their appointment orders be restored. The said representations were forwarded to the Respondent but the same got declined. Hence, the Petitioners approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “It is true that there cannot be any waiver of the fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the writ Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and laches on the part of the writ-petitioner in approaching a writ Court.
The Court was of the opinion that laches is one of the factors which ought to be borne in mind by the writ Court while exercising its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Writ Court, in exercise of such discretion, ought not to, ordinarily, come to the rescue of the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic.
“The doctrine of laches, itself a creature of equity, must perforce perforce capitulate where the imperatives of justice demand redress. Equity being the animating spirit of adjudication, brooks no rigid adhesion to technical constraints when the cause in hand is meritorious & conscience impels the judicial succor”, it further remarked.
The Court noted that the Petitioners have laid challenge to the Orders whereby their representations have been rejected but the said challenge is indubitably ostensible as, in fact, they are seeking invalidation of the communication whereby their appointment was terminated.
“Keeping in view the entirety of facts/circumstances involved in the present matter, there cannot be two opinions regarding the writ petition in hand being barred by laches. Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves rejection, being barred by laches”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Navdeep Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:031643-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Anurag Arora
Respondents: Senior DAG Salil Sabhlok, Senior Advocate Munisha Gandhi, Advocates Arshdeep Bhullar, and Manveer Narang.
