1 CGHC010031242017 2026:CGHC:39122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5085 of 2017 * - Parmeshwar Ram S/o Bhauwa Ram, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Tareni, Post Darima, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 – The Collector, Balrampur Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Joint Director, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur C.G. 8 - District Education Officer, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Govt. Advocate Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.11 11:07:48 +0530 2 “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Assistant Teacher (LB) (E-Cader / T- Cader) pursuant to the advertisement issued on 15.01.2008. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus quashing order dated 23.09.2015 passed in Mukhyamantri Jandarshan Programme in case no. 500715020665. 10.2AThat, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing the result list of 22.02.2009 (Annexure P/4) in respect of the present petitioner, interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order granting all consequential benefits. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No. 4 floated an Advertisement dated 15.01.2008 to fill up vacancies of Siksha Karmi Grade- I, II & III. The petitioner submitted application form along with relevant documents including employment exchange registration certificate. The last date to submit the application form was 09.02.2008. The petitioner participated in the examination conducted by the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 published result on 03.06.2008. The petitioner secured 84th rank in merit list, whereas 51st position in scheduled tribe category. Admittedly, the petitioner is member of scheduled tribe category. The petitioner did not participate in the counselling on 22.02.2009. The petitioner submitted 02 employment exchange registration certificates dated 20.09.2005 and 10.09.2008. After counselling, final result was published on 22.02.2009, wherein the petitioner secured 35th position, but in absence of live employment exchange registration certificate, he was not offered appointment. The candidates were granted last opportunity 3 to participate in the counselling on 20.05.2009 and time upto 26/27.05.2009 was granted to submit original documents. The petitioner after expiry of given period submitted his employment exchange registration certificate dated 20.09.2005. The petitioner moved an application on 14.08.2014 before Mukhyamantri Jandarshan Programme raising his grievance of non-appointment. On 16.06.2015 an order was passed wherein a direction was issued to initiate disciplinary action against the authorities who deprived the petitioner for appointment. On 23.09.2015 report was submitted to the effect that the petitioner had submitted an expired employment exchange registration certificate, therefore, he was not found eligible for appointment and there was no deliberate action by the authorities. WPS No. 4913/2016 was filed by the petitioner and same was withdrawn on 11.07.2017 with liberty to file fresh petition. The petitioner filed this petition on 13.09.2017. 3. Mr. Amarnath Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that non-appointment of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the petitioner had live employment exchange registration certificate, but the respondent authorities discarded that document and therefore, direction was issued on 16.06.2015 to take disciplinary action against erring officers. He would also contend that the employment exchange registration certificate dated 20.09.2005 was live on the date of submission of application, therefore, reason assigned in the report dated 23.09.2015 is incorrect. He would pray to allow this petition. 4 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned Government appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5 would oppose. 5. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Advocate would contend that live employment exchange registration certificate was mandatory criteria for appointment. He would further contend that last date to submit application form was 09.02.2008, whereas petitioner was registered with employment exchange on 10.09.2008 and therefore, he was not found eligible. He would submit that the employment exchange registration certificate dated 20.09.2005 was submitted by the petitioner after cut off date and therefore it was not taken into consideration. He would submit that an enquiry was conducted, wherein it was found that the petitioner failed to submit employment exchange registration certificate within time and there was no deliberate wrong action by the concerned authority. It is also argued that though the name of the petitioner was not considered in the year 2008, but writ petition was filed on 13.09.2017 and thus, writ petition suffers from principles of delay and laches. He would contend that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. In para- 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that an objection was raised by the petitioner on 28.05.2009, which was allowed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat and subsequently proceedings were drawn by the Collector Balrampur on 14.08.2014 and 20.08.2015 and that was the reason, the petitioner preferred this writ petition in the year 2017. 5 8. Perusal of the documents would reveal that result was published by the respondent No. 6 on 03.06.2008. The petitioner was required to submit live employment exchange registration certificate at the time of counselling, but it was produced after the last date i.e. 26/27.05.2009, therefore, name of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner took long 08 years to approach this Court. When name of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authorities, the petitioner should have filed the writ petition immediately thereafter. The recruitment process was completed in the year 2009 itself and the orders of appointment were issued subsequently. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. Through Its Chairman & Managing Director and Another Vs. K.Thangappan and Another, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held that delay and laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right. The relevant paragraph no. 6 is reproduced herein below:- “6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, (1969) 1 SCC 185. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.” 6 10. In the matter of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. It is further held that when a direction is issued by a court to consider the representation, and when such representation is rejected, such an order does not revive the stale claim. The relevant paragraphs no. 10 and 11 are reproduced herein below:- “10. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of “acknowledgment of a jural relationship” to give rise to a fresh cause of action.” 11. In the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Hon’ble Supreme has held that when a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is 7 considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court’s direction. The relevant paragraphs no. 15 and 16 are reproduced herein below:- “15. When a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time- barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court’s direction. Neither a court’s direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16. A court or tribunal, before directing “consideration” of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a “live” issue or whether it is with reference to a “dead” or “stale” issue. If it is with reference to a “dead” or “stale” issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct “consideration” without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect.” 12. In the matter of Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Ram Gopal, reported in (2021) 13 8 SCC 225, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the prolonged delay of many years ought not to have been overlooked or condoned. 13. Having considered the facts of the present case, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred cases and approach of the petitioner, I do not find any good ground to grant relief(s) as sought for. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti