Laches

A litigant cannot be non-suited by allowing laches to be stumbling block in the way of dispensation of justice since rule of laches is applied in accordance with facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be made rule of universal application.

Single Judge of High Court passed the order of conversion of Succession Matter Applications (SMAs) into a suit for administration

Contention of the petitioner was that SMAs were to be treated as a "regular suit" rather than a "suit for administration"

Validity

Court had meticulously adhered to all the pre-requisites of S.295 of the Succession Act, 1925 (Act)

Petitioners insistence on the insertion of the word "regular" before "suit" in S.295 of the Act to recall/review the expression that "these SMAs" are converted into a suit for administration/partition of the properties of the deceased" was misconceived

When legal heirs of a deceased person contest their share in the deceased's property, any one of the legal heirs can initiate a suit for administration of the properties or file an application under S.278 of the Act for a grant of "Letter of Administration" for the properties

A regular suit arising from the proceedings of a "Letter of Administration" can only be converted into a "suit for administration" of the property of the "deceased person"

Petitioners refrained from contesting the impugned orders, which consequently attained finality and they also did not avail themselves of the alternate remedy of appeal, which was at their disposal

Petition suffered from laches, which the petitioners could not adequately and appropriately explain

Writ was legally untenable against the order passed by the Single Judge of High Court under the purview of Art.199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

If petitioners claim to have approached the official respondents multiple times, cogent documentary evidence supporting such assertion should be brought on record, otherwise, such alleged efforts would remain unsubstantiated.

Petitioners challenged the recruitment process for Junior Elementary School Teachers (JEST) under the Recruitment Policy 2021, alleging that despite possessing professional qualifications such as B.Ed and Associate Degree in Education (ADE), they were not awarded the additional two marks prescribed by the policy, which allegedly deprived them of selection

At outset petitioners were confronted with the question of maintainability of the present Constitutional petition for same being preferred with a delay of four years

Held: Petitioners challenged the appointment process carried out under Recruitment Policy 2021 after a lapse of four years

Although they claimed to have approached the official respondents multiple times, no cogent documentary evidence supporting this assertion was found in the record, hence, their alleged efforts remained unsubstantiated

This conduct suggested that the petitioners never formally sought redressal from the authorities

The present petitionfiled after a delay of four years was marred by inordinate and unexplained laches

Though delay alone might not have been fatal but once rights accrued in favour of others, a belated challenge by the petitioners could not be entertained

Recruitment having concluded in 2021 and appointments made accordingly, the petitioners' long and unexplained silence rendered their claim abandoned

Constitutional petition was hit by the doctrine of laches

This doctrine, rooted in equity and fairness, presumed that persons aware of their rights must act promptly to enforce them

The petitioners were aware of the policy provisions, yet failed to act in a timely manner

Discretionary relief could be denied where there was unexplained and unreasonable delay

The maxim 'delay defeats equity' was squarely attracted to the present case

Accordingly the petitioner delay of four years in asserting their claim rendered the present petition incompetent

Courts never aid the indolent who sleep over their rights

Present petition, thus, failed on the ground of laches and was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Equitable relief must be sought with diligence and unreasonable delay may result in dismissal of a petition on the ground of laches

The law universally favors the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.

Petitioner had failed to implead as respondents the individuals whose appointments he sought to challenge and the constitutional petition had been filed after 10 years of the conclusion of recruitment process

Such unexplained delay rendered the petition liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches

Even if the petitioner had a valid grievance, the failure to act with reasonable promptness undermined the case in constitutional matters, unexplained and prolonged delay was fatal

Doctrine of laches in equity, though not rigid, is rooted in fairness

Relief may be denied if delay prejudices the opposing party or causes administrative disruption

Plea of petitioner that the respondents had issued appointment orders to the persons, who had never appeared in interview, thus, process was against law and recruitment rules, was not substantiated as nothing had been placed before High Court in this regard

Even otherwise such plea required factual probe, which in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction could not be done

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

No court can dismiss a lis on the ground of laches if it defeats the cause of justice and thereby perpetuates an injustice

Bar of laches cannot be over emphasized in a case where the relief claimed is based on a recurring cause of action.

Claim of the petitioner was that he being successful candidate was placed at serial No.17 of the merit list, however, respondent, who was placed at serial No.80 of the merit list was appointed due to her familial connection in the Education Department

Validity

Claim of the petitioner being a successful candidate was effectively controverted by documentary evidence, thus, High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could not adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact

Constitutional petition suffered from incurable delay as recruitment process pertained to the year 2012 while the constitutional petition was instituted in 2016 without any satisfactory explanation regarding delay of four years, thus, doctrine of laches squarely applied

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Equitable relief must be sought with diligence, and unreasonable delay may result in dismissal of a petition on the ground of laches

The law universally favours the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights

Doctrine of laches, rooted in equity and fairness, presumed that persons aware of their rights must act promptly to enforce them

Courts do not aid the indolent who sleep over their rights.

Where a litigant institutes a belated petition and seeks to justify the delay by claiming that efforts were made to assert the alleged right before the competent authorities, such claims must be supported by credible documentary evidence

Mere verbal assertions, unaccompanied by substantiating material, are inadequate to excuse the delay.

Petitioner being aggrieved of his demotion to a lower grade without specifying any period sought reinstatement to his original position

Respondent-Bank pleaded non-maintainability of the constitutional petition on the counts of laches and non-statutory Rules of National Bank of Pakistan

Validity

Petitioner had impugned memorandums of his demotion and dismissal of his departmental appeal decided on merits without being time barred

Computation of time relevant to the doctrine of laches would commence from the date of the later memorandum

Constitutional petition was filed a mere 18 days subsequent to memorandum of dismissal of appeal of the petitioner, thus, constitutional petition was not hit by laches

National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, were held to be statutory

Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2011, which were culminated upon passing of his demotion order in the year 2013, thus, Rules of 1973 being statutory applied to the petitioner's case, meaning thereby that NBP, as a statutory corporation, was subject to the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, predicated on substantial evidence and an exhaustive examination of the case, were immune from interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

Interference in such findings would egregiously undermine the integrity of the administrative process and the inviolable principle of finality of administrative decisions

It is imperative that the judiciary respects the meticulously established processes to handle such inquiries, except where there is compelling evidence of procedural impropriety or a palpable violation of fundamental rights

Punitive measures, including demotions, must not be of an indefinite duration, thus, impugned memorandums were modified to the extent that the punitive measure of degradation to a lower stage/grade was specified to be an effective for two years from the date of initial memorandum

Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

Although as a general principle bar of limitation is not applicable to the proceedings under Articles 199 & 184 of the Constitution but insistence is placed on initiating proceedings promptly and within a reasonable time to avoid the question of laches

In case the Court finds that the party invoking Constitutional jurisdiction is guilty of contumacious lethargy, inaction, laxity or gross negligence in the prosecution or a cause for enforcement of a right, the Court would be justified in non- suiting such person on the premise of laches.

Petitioners were well aware about the acquisition proceedings from the very beginning of the process but they did not challenge the same within reasonable time rather they filed writ petition after lapse of about 14 years of the acquisition proceedings, as such the petition was hit by the principle of laches

Petitioners prayed for determination of compensation as per the market price of acquired land for which they had statutory remedy by way of filing a reference under S.18 read with S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but despite knowledge, the said remedy had not been explored, rather they straightaway approached High Court without availing the statutory remedy, as such writ petition was not maintainable

Acquisition of land in question had attained finality and had become past and closedtransaction which could not be re-opened on the whims and caprice of an indolent party

Petitioners on the one hand had prayed for grant of compensation of acquired land, whereas, on the other hand they had prayed for setting aside the acquisition proceedings which assertion suffered from the principle of approbate and reprobate, which was not permissible

Acquisition proceedings had been completed, land had been acquired through process of law, entire amount of compensation had been deposited and final Award had been issued, therefore, after issuance of award ordinarily constitutional petition was not maintainable

Constitution petition was dismissed in circumstances.

If the remedy of filing a constitutional petition is not availed within reasonable time, the interference can be refused on the ground of laches

Question of laches in constitutional petition is always considered in the light of the conduct of the person invoking the constitutional jurisdiction.

Litigant who sleeps on his rights has no right to claim relief.

Rule of laches is applied in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case keeping in view the equitable principles

Normally, reasonable time to approach the Court is held to be three months.

Plaintiff was initially appointed as a Trainee Officer in the company, but later, he joined the Federal Government on deputation and subsequently the Government of Sindh; he then filed a Constitutional petition for permanent induction into the service of the Government of Sindh with all consequential benefits, which was allowed by the court

After the High Court's decision, the defendant company terminated the plaintiff's lien from service after keeping him on its active roll for 12 years on deputation

Plaintiff was not legally justified in claiming service benefits from the defendant company because the company's service rules had no provision for it

Additionally, the plaintiff resisted the order to report back to the defendant company and had already been permanently inducted into the service of the Government of Sindh with all related benefits

Decision of the High Court qualified the meaning of phrase 'finally decided' as used in S. 11 of the C.P.C

Plaintiff had previously challenged the order of reporting to his parent department without claiming any dues against the defendant company

Instead, he sought permanent induction in the Government of Sindh with reference to summary(ies) of the Chief Minister

However, after such a long period, he was not justified in claiming such relief

Plaint was rejected in circumstances.

Where constitutional petition was filed with a delay of more than one year and three months, High Court declared the same to be not maintainable on the principle of laches.

Court of equity has always referred its aid to state demand where a party has slept upon his right and acquiesced for a great length of time

Question of laches in filing Constitutional petition has to give serious consideration unless plausible explanation is forthcoming for such delay and same cannot be overlooked

Petitioner after induction became silent, when he was repatriated then he filed application for implementing decision of Cabinet passed in year 1993, which was time barred

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Laches has never been taken as an absolute bar in cases where petitioners were found entitled to a relief which has already been granted by Court of law to similarly placed other petitioner.

Petitioner was a widow of erstwhile employee of respondent, who during his tenure had opted for Voluntary Separation Scheme, however, through present petition she sought direction to the respondent to pay bonus, farewell grant, burial charges, benevolent fund and group insurance amount

Validity

Voluntary Separation Scheme was a binding contract and nothing about its unconstitutionality was established nor was there any substance to render it as void under the Contract Act, 1872

In the entire scheme of Pensions Act, 1871 and rules there was nothing to prevent the employees from entering into a contract in bargain with their post retirement or pensionary benefits which they could have availed

Present petition fell within the doctrine of laches as the cause of action had accrued approximately 04 years before filing of the petition

Petitioner was not deprived of her fundamental rights

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Writ petition was filed after a delay of more than 1 year and 3 months which was badly barred by time and hit by principle of laches

Only vigilant not the indolent was to get the relief from Court of equity or law respecting his right which was violated or infringed

Petitioner could not satisfy as to why he remained in deep slumber for such a long period for realization of his legal rights before High Court which he alleged to have been violated by the respondents

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

No period of limitation is prescribed for filing a constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution, but it has to be filed within a reasonable time

Reasonable time means time requisite for filing of appeal/ revision, which is normally three months.

Grievance of petitioners was that due to tribal feud between their tribe and another, the property of petitioners' tribe was damaged by the rival party

Brother of the Chief of Tribe (respondent) filed constitutional petition; whereafter, filed contempt application before the High Court

In contempt application, the official respondents submitted report wherein detail of damages was estimated

Finance Department released the amount of damages and placed the same at the disposal of Deputy Commissioner for grant of compensation

Deputy Commissioner handed over the cheque to the respondent

Held, that petitioners were in close league with the respondent

Respondent had filed the constitutional petition in the year 2002, but the petitioners had remained mum and had not even filed an application for impleading them as party

Petitioners had failed to assign any cogent reason for silence during such period

Equity would aid vigilant, not indolent

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petition was filed without proper documentation, disclosure of facts, cause of action and that too without any plausible explanation for filing the petition in the year 2020 irrespective of the fact that almost all the petitioners were terminated in the year 2013

Petitioners had not given the details that after joining their duties for how much period they had performed their duties and from which particular date their salaries were stopped

Such questions could not be resolved by High Court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution and, similarly, the question of delay was required to be examined with reference to the facts of each case

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Appellant was appointed in employer establishment in the year 1977 and while serving in the department he was terminated from service in the year 1989

Appellant was ultimately reinstated into service without back benefits by the Supreme Court in the year 2015

Contention of appellant was that he submitted joining report after reinstatement but the employer did not allow him proper dues and also did not fix his salaries in an appropriate manner

Single Bench dismissed the appellant's petition on the ground that the petition was barred by time and that his claim was also barred within the meaning of Art. 114 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Validity

Appellant was required to agitate his grievance of not receiving his salaries and dues immediately when he received his first salary after reinstatement, but at that time he did not raise any objection on the salary received by him and continued receiving his salaries and dues allowed by the employer till the date of his retirement

Appellant had also sworn undertaking cum indemnity in the year 2017 whereby he had received all the dues and there was nothing outstanding, so much so, that appellant in the said bond had also affirmed that he would have no other claim against the employer and also the appellant would be not rightful to make any other claim against the employer in future

Appeal was dismissed.

Principle of Laches is not one of the universal application to be applied in every case without examining dictates of equity, justice, fair-play and fact and circumstances of the case

Laches cannot be treated at par with law of limitation which prescribe period for enforcing a right or liability and requires Courts to dismiss a lis if not filed within such prescribed statutory period

No Court should dismiss a lis on the ground of laches if action assailed before it defeats the ends of justice and perpetuates injustice.

Petitioners assailed action of Development Authority (Authority) whereby boundary wall of their house was demolished and a road was constructed on their property

Authority did not dispute ownership of the petitioners, however, claimed that they had taken action under S.39(3) of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 (the Act)

Validity

Section 39 of the Act, as a whole, empowered the Director General LDA to eject unauthorized occupants but the powers were dependent upon mandatory condition of issuance of prior notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party

Section 39(3) of the Act was confined to taking action and not demolishing the property

Authority could not be termed as unauthorized occupants of the property

Authority had not raised the issue of construction of boundary wall during the last more than thirty four years and were now estopped from doing so being hit by laches and acquiescence

Authority's action hampered the petitioner's fundamental right of due process of law which was protected under Art. 10-A of the Constitution in which right of fair trial and due process was granted to all citizens

Constitutional petition was allowed and the action of Authority was declared to have been done in disregard and without proper procedure provided under the law.

Laches in the simplest form means failure of a person to do something which should have been done by him within a reasonable time, if remedy of Constitutional petition is not availed within reasonable time, interference can be refused on the ground of laches

Question of laches in Constitutional petition is always considered in light of conduct of person invoking Constitutional jurisdiction.

Neither at present nor at the time of filing petition, respondent was holding any public office, petition was hit by laches

High Court declined to declare that respondent was not sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and Amin, as there was no declaration to the contrary by Court of law

Public offices of respondent were challenged after lapse or expiry of their tenures

Petitioner attempted to challenge past public offices and filed his petition at belated stage, when respondent was not holding any public office

Disqualification of respondent was sought from date of his filing nomination papers on 24-10-2002 for contesting elections of Provincial Assembly, his nomination papers for contesting elections of local government and in 2005 for City Nazim was not physically possible due to inordinate delay and deep slumber on the part of petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/husband also invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against the judgment-in-appeal after a delay of more than two years and two months

Petitioner contended that he could not file appeal in time before Appellate Court due to his sickness; and that he had been behind the bars for two months rendering him unable to assail judgment-in-appeal

Held, that there was no explanation of the long standing period of one year even if the period of two month of his incarceration was excluded

Similar to the ground of sickness taken during the appeal, the ground being pressed by the petitioner for condonation the delay/ laches in filing present constitutional petition was also without any substance

Delay in approaching the forum (Appellate Court) gave/created valuable rights in favour of other party and even approaching High Court with an inordinate delay of 14/15 months attracted the maxim 'delay defeats equity'

Conduct of the petitioner could not be termed as aboveboard, instead it appeared to be negligent; and equitable relief could not be granted in extra-ordinary jurisdiction of High Court

Petitioner failed to make out a case for exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances .

Petitioner enrolled in Dental College for Bachelors in Dental Surgery in the year 2011, appeared in 1st Professional BDS exam, however, she could not clear two subjects despite availing three chances

Petitioner, later on, filed constitutional petition claiming therein that she was entitled to avail four chances but had missed one of them due to severe illness

Validity

Regulation 11 of MBBS and BDS (Admission, House Job and Internship) Regulations, 2018, clearly provided that any student who failed to clear 1st or 2nd professional examination in four consecutive chances availed or un-availed was not eligible for continuation of medical and dental studies of the MBBS and BDS

Petitioner had not applied to the authorities before missing the un-availed chance that she was suffering from severe sickness and was unable to appear in the exam

Petitioner had been sending requests to the authorities for providing her a chance to appear in BDS final examination since May, 2015 but no response from the authorities was given

Petitioner had kept silent for a long period and invoked the constitutional jurisdiction on 27-01-2020 which was barred by time and was hit by the principle of laches

Intra court appeal was dismissed.

Petitioner called in question the appointment of respondent as General Manager by (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority) [PEMRA]

Validity

Chairman and the Members of PEMRA were public office holders for the purposes of Art. 199 of the Constitution but not every officer performing minute functions could be regarded as a public office holder

Post of General Manager was a senior position but it was not appointed by Federal Government

Basic purpose of filing the constitutional petition seemed to be the issuance of show cause notice to the General Manager (Operations)

Petitioner had not challenged the appointment of similarly placed person, who was appointed with the respondent, which showed his mala fide and personal grudge

Petition was hit by laches being filed after a lapse of 04 years of the appointment

Respondent was appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Board

Service regulations of PEMRA were non-statutory and its employees were not public servants

Petitioner had also failed to explain as to how he was able to lay his hands on the confidential/important documents of the department which was annexed with the petition

Petition was dismissed.

For purposes of a writ of quo warranto laches was not always a sufficient ground for dismissal of petition rather laches combined with improper conduct would bar relief.

Objection which had not been raised in the written statement before the High Court could not be allowed to be raised before Supreme Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was a mining company which was granted exploration license but same was subsequently withdrawn as being inadvertently issued

Validity

Neither any prospecting license was issued over concerned area in favour of petitioner nor possession of said area was handed over to petitioner

Allotment letter for exploration of minerals was issued to petitioner for a period of three years which period also expired and petitioner neither applied for extension of license nor it was in possession of the area

Government had the prerogative either to extend period of license, refuse its extension or convert the same into lease

Government had already shown its intention not to extend license period in favour of petitioner, therefore, petitioner had no vested right to claim relief as prayed

Notification of authorities was challenged by petitioner after lapse of more than five years and apparently petition also suffered from laches

No period of limitation had been prescribed for filing of a Constitutional petition under Art.199 of Constitution but it had to be filed within reasonable time

Reasonable time for filing of appeal/revision before court was normally three months

High Court declined to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in order passed by Government as petitioner had not moved any application for condonation of laches by giving reasons, hence, inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching High Court was not condoned

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court could decline to intervene or exercise its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction where grant of relief amounted to retention of ill-gotten gains and was competent to pass such order as was necessary for the ends of justice

If in application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. Court was evinced that main plaint was barred by law and did not disclose any cause of action the Court was competent to reject the plaint and dismiss the suit

Petitioner had asserted in his Constitutional petition that allotment was made in his favour in year 1953 whereas he filed petition in year 1991 for implementation of order i.e. after lapse of 38 years

Petitioner remained mum for a period of four decades and did not agitate the matter before competent forum and principle of laches was fully applicable

High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 12(2), C.P.C. set aside the judgment passed in Constitutional petition

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Such dispute could not be resolved through constitutional jurisdiction as the High Court had limited jurisdiction to dilate upon such matters

Petition was hit by doctrine of laches as the same was filed after about 7 years of the accrual of cause of action

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Applicants were residents on land in question who were aggrieved of dispossession by Trial Court by delivering possession of land in question to respondent Housing Society

Plea raised by applicants was that they were residing on land in question and that Housing Society could not file illegal dispossession complaint

Validity

Documents produced by applicants were apparently fake as no village could be sanctioned or approved on a private land

Allotment order did not bear date of issuance and through same, plot of 120 square yards was allotted to a person while as per R. 4(3) of Sindh Goth Abad (Housing Scheme) Rules, 2008, size of plot allotted under Goth Abad Scheme could not exceed two ghuntas

No proof was placed on record by any applicant

Not a single National Identity Card, domicile or Permanent Residence Certificate was annexed with application or produced which bore address of land in question

Claim of applicants was merely words and had no credibility

Applicants had no locus standi to raise objection about status of Housing Society

Housing Society was established to have acquired land in question after fulfilling all requisite formalities and payment of price of land which was transferred in the name of Housing Society

Housing Society had good title over subject land while applicants and other illegal occupants, being encroachers and illegal occupiers had no right regarding land in question

No claim on behalf of applicants regarding land in question was justified

High Court declined to interfere in order of possession issued by Trial Court as revision was not maintainable on ground of laches

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners, invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court with personal or financial interest in a public procurement process, who claim to be public interest litigants, could not be permitted to challenge with impunity bidding processes initiated by public agencies

Delay in approaching High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution to initiate public interest litigation could be held to be a valid defence on which such litigation may be defeated.

Issue of laches is required to be considered with reference to fact of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in such behalf.

Complainant alleged that the respondent was disseminating false and misleading information by using virtually identical firm names, trademarks and by copying of distinctive items of product packing

Respondent, while relying on the principle of laches, contended that the complainant had kept silent for several years and had not objected to the infringement of its' rights when the respondent was commercializing its business activities

Validity

Neither S. 37(2) of Competition Act, 2010 nor its any other provision of the Act put any time limitation as to when to file a complaint for violation thereof

Application of Competition Act, 2010 was not only extendable to violations occurring in the present, but, to the violations occurred in the past

Any person violating the provisions of the Competition Act, 2010 could not be allowed to get away with his violation merely on the fact that the time had lapsed

Objection raised by respondent was not tenable and was rejected.

Bar of laches is neither absolute nor is equal to bar of limitation under Limitation Act, 1908.

Bar of laches is neither absolute nor is equal to bar of limitation under Limitation Act, 1908.

Aggrieved person is supposed to approach High Court in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution within reasonable time and such time has been defined as six months.

Petitioner on 10-09-2015 questioned order of cancellation of allotment issued on 17-03-1997 and sought restoration of his allotment

Petitioner kept mum when his revision petition was dismissed in the year 1999 and it took him almost 16 years to approach High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction

Mandir and Samadhi were constructed on property in dispute; there was an affidavit of petitioner to the effect that he handed over possession of property at his free will, therefore, nothing was left for adjudication

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petition was barred by laches

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Fundamental Right(s) could not be denied, infringed or curtailed on ground of laches and court could not dismiss a lis on ground of laches if doing so defeated the cause of justice

Laches, per se, was not a bar on exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and question of delay in filing of a Constitutional petition would have to be examined with reference to facts of each case

Question of laches was to be considered in the light of conduct of person invoking Constitutional jurisdiction and degree of negligence if any should be considered along with determining that if by grant of relief being sought, no injustice would be caused to opposite party

No Constitutional petition should be dismissed merely on ground of laches without examining dictates of justice.

Contention of petitioner was that respondents did not fulfill the requisite criteria and their appointment and promotion were illegal and without lawful authority

Validity

Respondents were initially appointed on contract basis against temporary/project posts having requisite experience

Respondents-employees on creation of regular/permanent posts were adjusted by way of regularization against newly created posts and they had attained the requisite experience in the relevant field

Nothing was on record that respondents procured their appointments, regularization and promotion through fraud or illegal means

When appointees were not at fault, appointing authority could not proceed against

Respondents could not be penalized due to irregularities, if any, committed in the process of appointment and subsequent steps

Decisive step taken by the Authority could not be withdrawn

Once a right was created by extending benefit for no fault of a person, same could not be taken away on mere assumption, supposition, whims and fancy

Such right once vested could not be destroyed or withdrawn as legal bar would come into play under doctrine of locus poenitentiae

Even in presence of any legal defect in initial appointment the principle of locus poenitentiae would not permit competent authority to undo the same after a long time and remove the incumbent from service

Respondents had already been confirmed/regularized and present constitutional petition suffered from laches

No right of petitioner or any other contesting candidate was affected due to impugned appointment

Writ of quo warranto could not be issued against the respondents

Crucial date to determine the qualification of a person to hold a post was not only the date of appointment but also the date of issuance of writ

If a person during pendency of constitutional petition fulfilled the requisite qualification to hold such a post then writ of quo warranto could not be issued against such person

Employees no more suffered disqualification to hold the post in question

Petitioner had approached the High Court with ulterior motive and mala fide intention

Minor irregularities, if any, were not sufficient for issuance of writ of quo warranto against the respondents

Appointment, in the present case, was not disturbed either by the Service Tribunal and Supreme Court in the earlier litigation

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Scope.

Petitioners got retirement under Voluntarily Retired Scheme in year 2000 but claimed to be entitled for grant of additional Rs.50,000/- under Employees Welfare Fund and invoked Constitutional jurisdiction after 16 years of their retirement

Validity

Voluntarily Retired Scheme was not imposed upon petitioners nor anyone was compelled or put under duress, pressure or coercion to opt for the same

Petitioners voluntarily undertook that they would not claim any further amount in respect of welfare grant in future

Petitioners, in circumstances, could not rescind from agreement unilaterally to claim further amount of Rs.50,000/- from the employer

Petitioners filed constitutional petition on 08-08-2018 whereas alleged cause of action initially accrued to them in the month of October 2000 when they opted voluntarily for retirement

No explanation for such delay having been given, case of petitioners suffered from laches

Delay defeated equity and such equity aided vigilant

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.