WP/28161/2008 of N. Ananda Rao, Vs Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Represented by its Chairman on 26 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO:28161of2008

Between:

N. Ananda Rao, S/o. N. Mukhalingam,

Steel Plant General Hospital, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, (A Govt. of India Enterprise), VISAKHAPATNAM 530 031.

A.P.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Represented by its Chairman andManaging Director, Administrative Building, Visakhapatnam - 530 031 A.P.

2 Director (Personal and Administration) Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam - 530 031 A.P. Visakhapatnam - 530 031 A.P.

3 Dr. Ch. Vani, W/o. D.V.S. Kuma, Chief Specialist (Ophthalmology)Visakha Steel General Hospital,Visakha Steel General Hospital, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam - 530 031.

.....RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.S.RAO

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.RAVINDER RAO

The Court made the following :ORDER:

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to raise thestale claims. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Specialist(Ophthalmology) in E2A Grade in respondent No.1 organisation on20.09.1995. He was promoted as Specialist (Ophthalmology) in E3Grade on 31.12.1998. He was further promoted to the post of SeniorSpecialist (Ophthalmology) in E4 Grade on 31.12.2001. On 30.06.2006,he was further promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Specialist(Ophthalmology) in E5 Grade. In this writ petition, the petitionerexpressed the grievance that when advertisement was issued forSpecialist (Ophthalmology) in E3A Grade on 24.05.1995, respondentNo.1 arbitrarily appointed him to the post of E2A Grade, which is inferiorto the advertised post. The petitioner’s further grievance lies inrespondent No.1 selecting respondent No.3 as Head of the Department.The petitioner in fact, made a representation to respondent No.1 and thesame was duly replied.

On the admitted facts, I am of the view that the petitioner, whoslept over his purported rights without batting his eyelid for more than 13years, filed this writ petition.

The law is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India is discretionary and a person who does not pursuehis remedies diligently is not entitled to invoke such a discretionaryremedy. The petitioner has not given any explanation whatsoever fornot raising his claims all these years. On top of it, the petitioner not only accepted the initial appointment without any demur, but also neverquestioned the action of the respondents at every stage, when he wasgiven promotions. On this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to bedismissed. Even otherwise, a perusal of clarification, dated 19.01.2008issued by respondent No.1 organisation shows that it has given cogentreasons on each of the aspects raised by the petitioner. The petitionerbeing in hibernation obviously woke up to institute this writ petition,which is purely speculative in nature.

For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason toentertain this writ petition.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.36894 of2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

26[th] DECEMBER, 2008.

kvni