Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dasharath Lakhan Sonawane, was selected as Clerk-cum-Typist by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) pursuant to an advertisement dated 19th March 1993. He was appointed by letter dated 21st October 1994 in the department of Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai, but due to lack of vacancy, he was posted in the Directorate of Art as Junior Clerk vide appointment letter dated 31st October 1994, joining on 2nd November 1994. The petitioner contended that candidates higher in merit were eligible for posting in Mantralaya, and he should have been posted there instead of Greater Mumbai Division. He claimed that posting in Mantralaya would have allowed him to rise to the post of Joint Secretary, whereas in Greater Mumbai, a Clerk could only rise to Superintendent, a non-gazetted Class III post. He filed Original Application No. 743 of 2015 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, seeking a declaration that due process was not followed in allotting candidates and seeking a direction to post him in Mantralaya Division with consequential benefits. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The High Court noted that the petitioner joined service on 2nd November 1994 and filed the O.A. only in 2015, after a delay of about 22 years. The court observed that the petitioner accepted the posting without any protest and did not explain the inordinate delay. The court held that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Laches and Delay - Challenge to Posting After 22 Years - The petitioner challenged his posting as Clerk-cum-Typist in Greater Mumbai Division instead of Mantralaya Division after 22 years of joining service - The court held that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches as the petitioner accepted the posting without protest and waited for over two decades to raise the grievance - Held that unexplained delay defeats the claim for equitable relief (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's challenge to his posting after 22 years is maintainable in view of delay and laches.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. The court upheld the Tribunal's order and held that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches.
Law Points
- Laches
- Delay defeats equity
- Limitation for service matters
- Unexplained delay in challenging administrative action
