1 S. No. 14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No.2233/2022 CM No.5609/2022 GHULAM HASSAN ZAZ …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sajid Ahmad Bhat, Advocate. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jehangir Iqbal Ganie, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suhail Mehraj, Advocate for R 2 to 4. Ms. Bisma Ali, Advocate vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI for R 1. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 06.08.2025 (ORAL) 1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has stated that while working as Head Assistant in the erstwhile Regional Engineering College now National Institute of Technology Srinagar, (hereinafter for short ‘the Institute’), on account of his brilliant educational background inasmuch as unblemished service record therein the Institute, sought his adjustment/appointment against the post of Liaison Officer, available in the Institute, however, the Institute instead of considering the petitioner for appointment/adjustment against the said post adjusted one Anjali Thusoo, a Govt. teacher working in the Government Middle School, Rainawari Srinagar, during her service therein, the said school, against the said post of Liaison Officer, aggrieved whereof the petitioner preferred SWP No. 1170/1992 before this Court, during the pendency of which petition, the said Anjali Thusoo also preferred SWP No. 758/1996, before the Jammu wing of this Court seeking confirmation of her services against the said post of Liaison Officer, which petitions came to be disposed of on 16.10.2000, on the statement of the counsel for the Institute for having arrived at a settlement. It is stated that the case of the petitioner, however, remained pending before the Institute and though a decision was taken in the 2 year 2004 qua the services of said Ms. Anjali Thusoo which came to be confirmed yet, the petitioner was not adjusted/posted against the post of Liaison Officer. It is being further stated that the petitioner herein thereafter preferred a contempt petition for non-compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, which contempt petition, however, came to be dismissed on the basis of a statement made by counsel for the contemnor/respondent that the case of the petitioner herein stands considered, which statement, however, was found to have been made wrongly. A review petition came to be filed by the petitioner herein against the said dismissal order of contempt petition, which review petition as well, came to be dismissed. It is being next stated that despite the dismissal of the said contempt petition, respondents did not take any final decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner against the post of Liaison Officer, even though various supportive communications favourable to the petitioner came to be addressed in this regard by the Government as well. It is being lastly stated that the respondents slept over the matter and did not take a final call qua the claim of the petitioner herein either during the service of the petitioner or even after his retirement and as such, the failure of the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner overlooking the order passed by this Court (supra) as also non-consideration of the representation claimed to have submitted by the petitioner from time to time necessitated for filing of instant petition, for seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the respondents to settle the grievance of the petitioner for granting him the benefits of post of Liaison Officer along with all consequential benefits in terms of assurance given to the petitioner. 2. Objections to the petition has been filed by respondents wherein the petition is being opposed. It is being specifically stated that the petitioner voluntarily retired from the services of the Institute as Head Assistant on 01.08.2010 having taken up a job in Canada and that the post of Liaison Officer which was available in the Institute got automatically abolished in terms of the Board of Directors resolution as the said post had remained vacant for more than a year and that the 3 claim of the petitioner against the post of Liaison Officer otherwise also was considered and rejected in terms of order dated 02.09.2006 and that the petition is hit by delay and laches warranting outright dismissal. Heard and perused the record. 3. Mr. Heard and perused the record. 3. Mr. M.Y. Bhatt, Senior Advocate appearing counsel for the petitioner, while making his submissions in tune and line with the case set up in the instant petition, would insist for grant of relief sought in the instant petition, whereas, on the contrary, Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Senior Advocate appearing counsel for the respondents, would vehemently oppose the submissions of Mr. Bhat, and would reiterate that the case of the petitioner has way back been considered and rejected in terms of order dated 02.09.2006 which was never challenged by the petitioner and that otherwise also the post of Liaison Officer stands since abolished. Mr. Ganai, would also vehemently oppose the petition on the ground of delay and laches. 4. Having regard to the facts of the case as well as aforesaid rival submissions of appearing counsel for the parties, it is deemed appropriate to address to the question of delay and laches raised by counsel for the respondents in the first instance. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had lodged a claim against the post of Liaison Officer somewhere in the year 1991 while in service of the Institute and in furtherance thereof filed SWP No. 1170/1992, when Ms. Anjali Thusoo came to be appointed against the said post of Liaison Officer. It is also not in dispute that the said Anjali Thusoo also preferred a writ petition being SWP No.758/1996 before the Jammu wing of this Court, seeking her confirmation against the said post of Liaison Officer which petition came to be disposed of on 16.01.2000 on the basis of the statement made by the then counsel of the Institute. It is not being denied and disputed by the petitioner that he voluntarily retired from the services in the year 2010 and was not adjusted against the post of Liaison Officer. 6. Nothing is forthcoming from the record so much so there is no explanation offers by the petitioner as to why and after voluntary retirement in 2010 now the instant petition has been filed. The 4 petitioner even seemingly has remained oblivious to the rejection order dated 02.09.2006 and has chosen to prefer the instant petition after a considerable period of time and although the delay in filing the instant petition has been tried to be attributed to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, yet the said pandemic stalled the working of courts for a brief spell of time that too in the year 2020. Thus, it is manifest that the petitioner herein has approached this Court after a considerable period of time without any plausible explanation and though the settled position of law is that there is no limitation prescribed in filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, yet law is equally settled that delay and laches would affect the maintainability of a petition. The Apex Court in case titled as “State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Bhailal Bhai”, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006, has held at para 17 as under: - “It has been made clear more than once that the power to give relief under Article 226 is a discretionary power. This is specially true in the case of power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus. Among the several matters which the High Courts rightly take into consideration in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it. ………it is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any rule for universal application. It may, however, be stated as a general rule that if there has been unreasonable delay the court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extraordinary remedy of mandamus.” Further in case titled as “U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Jawant Singh” reported in 2016 (11) SCC 464, the Apex Court has in the matter of delay and laches held as “when a person is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, his writ petition cannot be heard after a couple of years”. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, inasmuch as the aforesaid position the objection of delay and laches raised by counsel for the respondents against the maintainability of the petition succeeds, as a consequence whereof the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 06.08.2025 Ishaq Whether approved for reporting ? Yes