Gujarat High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Writ Seeking Appointment as Station Officer (Fire) Due to Laches and Acquiescence. Delay of 9 Years and Participation in Subsequent Selection Without Protest Bars Relief Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

High Court: Gujarat High Court

Admin

2026-05-19 15:37:31

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Bharatkumar Pravindas Mod, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the respondent, Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., to consider his candidature for the post of Station Officer (Fire) pursuant to an advertisement dated 3rd July 1999. He also sought a declaration that the respondent's action in not considering his case was illegal and prayed for appointment with retrospective effect. The brief facts are that the petitioner applied in response to the 1999 advertisement but was not selected. Subsequently, in 2008, the respondent issued a fresh advertisement for the same post, and the petitioner applied again and participated in the selection process, including written test and interview, without raising any objection regarding the earlier advertisement. He filed the present petition in 2008, after about 9 years from the 1999 advertisement, challenging the non-consideration of his candidature under the earlier advertisement. The respondent opposed the petition primarily on the ground of delay and laches. The court heard both sides and examined the issue of whether the petitioner's claim was barred by laches and acquiescence. The court noted that the petitioner had not taken any steps for about 9 years after the 1999 advertisement and had participated in the 2008 selection process without protest. The court held that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and acquiescence, as the petitioner had slept over his rights and had acquiesced to the situation by participating in the later selection. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Appointment - Laches and Acquiescence - Petitioner applied for post of Station Officer (Fire) pursuant to advertisement dated 3rd July 1999 but was not selected - He participated in subsequent selection process in 2008 without raising any objection - Writ petition filed in 2008 challenging non-consideration under 1999 advertisement - Held that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and acquiescence as the petitioner slept over his rights for about 9 years and participated in later selection without protest (Paras 5-10).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as Station Officer (Fire) pursuant to an advertisement dated 3rd July 1999, despite having participated in a subsequent selection process without protest and after a delay of about 9 years.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's claim was barred by laches and acquiescence. The court found no merit in the petition and declined to grant any relief.

Law Points

Laches
Acquiescence
Delay defeats equity
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
Limitation for writ petitions
Service law

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:6055

R/Special Civil Application No. 11048 of 2008

2026-01-28

Maulik J. Shelat

2026:GUJHC:6055

Mr. T.R. Mishra for the petitioner, Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for the respondent

Bharatkumar Pravindas Mod

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd.

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appointment to the post of Station Officer (Fire) and challenging non-consideration pursuant to an advertisement dated 3rd July 1999.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to consider his candidature for appointment as Station Officer (Fire) on the same terms as other candidates, a declaration that the respondent's action in not considering his case was illegal, and appointment with retrospective effect.

Filing Reason

The petitioner was not selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 3rd July 1999 and the respondent did not consider his case, leading to the filing of the writ petition in 2008.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as Station Officer (Fire) pursuant to the advertisement dated 3rd July 1999. Whether the petition is barred by laches and acquiescence due to delay of about 9 years and participation in subsequent selection process.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that he was entitled to be considered for appointment under the 1999 advertisement and that the respondent's action was illegal. The respondent contended that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioner had not taken any steps for about 9 years and had participated in the 2008 selection process without protest.

Ratio Decidendi

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appointment pursuant to an advertisement is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and acquiescence if the petitioner sleeps over his rights for a long period and participates in a subsequent selection process without raising any objection.

Judgment Excerpts

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking following reliefs: BRIEF FACTS The petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and acquiescence.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 11048 of 2008 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule was issued and the respondent waived service. The matter was taken up for final hearing with consent of parties.