2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.

This appeal by leave of the Court has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court dated 13th September, 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent, herein, has been accepted.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the Public Service Commission (PSC) advertised five posts of Assistant Professors Biology/Zoology/Botany (B-18), on 06.12.2013. The appellant and the respondent, herein, amongst others, participated in the selection process. Both the contestants qualified the written test and during the course of interview it was pointed out by the PSC that they did not possess the requisite teaching experience due to which they were declared ineligible to appear in the interview. The appellant, herein, and some others filed writ petitions before the High Court, whereas, the respondent, herein, filed an application before the Chairman PSC and claimed therein that he possesses the teaching experience of more than 7 years', therefore, the same may be considered. The application remained undecided for a period of more than 8 months thereafter the respondent also filed a writ petition before the High Court. The learned High Court vide impugned judgment dated 13.09.2018, while accepting the writ petition filed by the respondent issued the direction to the PSC to conduct the interview of the respondent, herein, within a period of one month from the receipt of the judgment. Now the appellant, herein, feeling aggrieved from the judgment of the High Court has filed the instant appeal by leave of the Court.

3. Barrister Hamyun Nawaz Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment of the High Court is against law and the facts of the case. He submitted that the learned High Court failed to appreciate the important aspect of the case that when the respondent in the year 2013, submitted his application, in response to the advertisement, he was not possessing the requisite teaching experience and the experience certificates relied upon by him are pertaining to the year 2016, which cannot be considered as relevant. He forcefully contended that the writ petition before the High Court was clearly hit by the principle of laches and liable to be dismissed on this sole ground but the learned High Court has not appreciated this aspect of the case in a legal manner.

4. On the other hand, Ch. Muhammad Kaleem Afsar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the impugned judgment is perfectly legal. He contended that the point of laches has duly been considered and resolved by the High Court in accordance with law. The respondent qualified the written test but was illegally deprived of participating in the interview by PSC on the ground that he did not possess the requisite teaching experience. The respondent was possessing the requisite teaching experience at the relevant time and he moved an application before the Chairman PSC for redressal of his grievance and along with the application he also annexed the experience certificates but the application remained undecided and after awaiting disposal of the application, he filed the writ petition. He maintained that the learned High Court after appreciating the record passed the well reasoned judgment and interference by this Court is not warranted under law.

5. We have heard the arguments and gone through the record made available along with the impugned judgment. The main point agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of appeal is that the writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was hit by the principle of laches and liable to be dismissed on this sole ground but the learned High Court has not considered this aspect in a legal manner. Before appreciating this crucial point, we deem it proper to observe here that in view of the settled principle of law the doctrine of laches would be attracted where the party invoking writ jurisdiction by his conduct has waived his right or on account of his negligence the other party would be put in a situation of disadvantage if the remedy is allowed to such person at a belated stage. Keeping in mind this principle of law, we have examined the record to appreciate the point of laches. The perusal of the record shows that the respondent challenged the validity of the selection process conducted and completed by PSC on 16.03.2016, after a period of more than 10 months by filing writ petition before the High Court. The explanation offered by the respondent, in respect of the delay caused in filing the writ petition, is that he moved an application before the Chairman PSC for redressal of his grievance and after awaiting its disposal he filed the writ petition. The record shows that PSC not only disallowed the respondent to participate in the interview rather amongst appellant, herein some other candidates were also made affected by the same decision of PSC. The other candidates filed writ petitions before the High Court which were accepted on 20.01.2017 and admittedly in the light of the direction issued by the High Court, the candidates have finally been selected. The respondent remained mum for a considerable time and after the decision made by the High Court in favour of the appellant and others, he approached the High Court by filing writ petition and tried to get the relief as was granted to the others. According to the respondent's own version, taken in ground No.12, of the memo. of writ petition, at the time of filing application before the Chairman, PSC, he was informed by PSC that decision on his application shall be made within a period of one month; but even after lapse of the specific period the respondent remained silent and no plausible justification in this regard has come on the record. The case of the respondent when adjudged on the touchstone of the principle of law, discussed hereinabove, it postulates that the doctrine of laches was fully attracted as the negligence on the part of the respondent is evident, moreover, by lapse of time, due to the negligence of the respondent, a valuable right was accrued to the appellant as he has finally been selected, therefore, in such a situation, the writ was liable to be dismissed on the sole point of laches. As we are convinced that the writ petition before the High Court was hit by the principle of laches, therefore, we do not intend to discuss the other points involved in the matter mere for an academic discussion. In view of the above, this appeal is accepted and while setting aside the impugned judgment the writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ZC/43/SC (AJ&K) Appeal allowed.