DR SARAT KUMAR DASH vs N.c.e.r.t. on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

Mr.SudhiRanjan Mishra, Member, J.M.

The applicant challenging the order dated 20.11.2019 wherein the respondents rejected to review the date of eligibility of his promotion has filed this OA praying for following reliefs: a) The order letter dated 21.11.2019 under Annexure – 7 rejecting the request for review of date of eligibility for promotion of the applicant be declared illegal and arbitrary. b) The amendment of the Minute of 42nd meeting of establishment committee vide Corrigendum dated 26.04.2012 under Annexure A/12 “incorporating 01.02.2012 order/circular deleting order/circular dated 09.12.2011 is without jurisdiction and without authority of the Law, shall be quashed. c) The order/circular dated 01.02.2012 be quashed declaring the same as unconstitutional and against the policy & UGC Regulations, 2010.

Kalpeswar Behera d) Direction/Directions be issued to promote the applicant under the CAS w.e.f. 01.01.2010 instead of 17.12.2014 i.e. one year from the date of eligibility e) Any other direction/directions be issued under the circumstances as this Hon’ble Court would deem fit and proper.

2. The fact of the case as inter alia averred stated by the applicant in the OA is as follows:

2.1. That, the National Council of Educational Research & Training hereinafter, referred to as "NCERT” is a society under Societies Registration Act and notified by the Central Govt. for the purpose of amenability & Jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

2.2. That, the applicant, initially entered into the college services under the Directorate of Higher Education of the Govt. of Orissa in the years 1983. The applicant has served about 20 years in different Colleges of the state without any aspersions.

2.3. That, however, by way of open selection, the applicant Joined in the "NCERT", Head Quarter, New Delhi on 12.11.2003 as a Reader in Physics. The applicant was associated with the

Kalpeswar Behera

Teacher's Training at higher secondary level and development of text books for the class IX, X, XI & XII during the year 2005-2007 and also in the development of NCERT science kits for the subject at Upper Primary, Secondary & also Higher Secondary levels. The applicant during the period, also presented a research paper thesis in the Dept. of Atomic Energy, in Solid State Physics Conference held at Gurunanak Dev University, Amritsar and has also contributed sincerely to the NCERT in the different field, apart from teaching as a Physics teacher.

2.4. That, however, after serving for a period of 3 years in New Delhi, HQ(RIE), the applicant came on transfer in Public interest to Regional Institute of Education, Bhubaneswar and Joined on 22.09.2006. 2.5 That, the applicant was re-designated as Associate Professor of Physics in Stage- IV wef. 01.01.2006 as per the UGC regulations. 2.6 That, it may not be out of place to mention that the applicant has an outstanding professional career is also responsible for guiding the Students like Mr. Chatrapati Parida, Biswajit Dalai, Mrs. Prabhasini Paikray to obtain the Ph.D. in Physics and Mr.

Kalpeswar Behera

Dhananjay Dhiraj obtain Ph.D in education with publication of about 107 research papers in National and International Journals. The applicant has also publication of 06 books for school and 01 book in physics is Higher Education to his credit from Utkal University. It may be also respectfully stated that the applicant has a outstanding record of service apart from his academic career. There are no aspersions against the applicant at any point of time. 2.7 That, it may be respectfully submitted that the University Grant Commission (UGC) provides the "Regulation" for appointment of teachers and their career advancement in University & institutions affiliated to it. The Regulation, the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in University and Colleges and other Measure for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 was published vide Gazette Notification dated 30.06.2010. The Regulation 6.3.10 provides a general circular shall be issued twice a year for CAS promotion. Regulation 6.3.12 speaks if the candidate does not succeed in final assessment but succeeds in eventual assessment, his promotion will be deemed to be from the later

Kalpeswar Behera date of successful assessment. Regulation 6.3.10 and 6.3.12 may be quoted below; 6.3.10. Candidates shall offer themselves for assessment for promotion, if any fulfill the minimum API scores indicated in the appropriate API system tables by submitting an application and the required PBAS Performa. They can do so three months before the due date if they consider themselves eligible. Candidates who do not consider themselves eligible can also apply at a later date. In any event, the university concerned shall send a general circular twice a year calling for applications for CAS promotions from eligible candidates. 6.3.12 (a) If a candidates applies for promotion on completion of the minimum eligibility period and is successful, the date of promotion will be from that of minimum period of eligibility (b) If, however, the candidates find that he/she fulfills the eligibility conditions at a later date and applies on that date and is successful, his/her promotion will be effected from that date of application fulfilling the criteria.

Kalpeswar Behera

(c) If the candidate does not succeed in the first assessment, but succeeds in the eventual assessment, his/her promotion will be deemed to be from the later date of successful assessment.

6.4.8. Associate Professor completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing a Ph.D. Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in the next higher grade (stage 5), subject to (a) satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS methodology provided in Table-I-III of Appendix IV stipulated in these Regulations, and (b) an assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Professor. Provided that no teacher, other than those with a Ph.D. shall be promoted or appointed as Professor. 2.8 That, it is also reiterated that the principle and guideline codified in the UGC regulations have always followed by the University and Institutions in its true spirit. The NCERT also reiterated the position vide its Office order dated 29.9.2020 to this effect. It states that, NCERT follows UGC guidelines issued from time to time for recruitment and promotion to its academic staff in toto as approved by 44th and 45th Establishment

Kalpeswar Behera

Committees followed by 103rd Executive Committee Meeting of Council. 2.9 That, "NCERT" has its own "Rules" for the affairs of the Council administered by the Executive Committee Consisting of Members, provided under the Rule 23 of the "Rules". The Rule 23 of the "Rules", relevant for the purpose of the case is quoted below; "23 The affairs of the Council shall be administered subject to the rules and regulations and orders of the Council, by an Executive Committee which shall consist of the following.

i. President of the Council who shall be the ex-office President of the Executive Committee;

ii. (a) The Minister of State in the Ministry of Education who shall be the ex-office Vice-President of the Executive Committee.

(b) A Deputy Minister of Education nominated by the President of the Council; (a) Director of the Council.

(b) Secretary of the Ministry of Education ex-office.

Kalpeswar Behera iii. Chairman of the University Grants Commission, member ex- office;

iv. Four Educationists with known interest in school education (two of whom shall be school teachers) nominated by the president. V. Joint Director of the Council.

vi. Three members of the Faculty of the Council of whom at least two shall be at the level of professors and Heads of Departments, nominated by the President of the Council; Rule 40 of the "Rules" provides that the "Executive Committee" has the power to frame and amend the regulations, not inconsistent with the rules. The Rule 40 of the Rules is thus; Regulations: (i) With the previous approval of the Government of India, the Executive Committee shall have powers to frame and amend Regulations, not inconsistent with these Rules, for the administration and management of the affairs of the Council.

Kalpeswar Behera

(ii) . Without prejudices to the generality of the foregoing provision, such Regulations may provide for following matters:

(a) The preparation and sanction of budget estimates, the sanctioning of expenditure, making an execution of contracts, the investment of the funds of the Council and the sale or alteration of such investment and account and audit.

(b) Powers, functions and conduct of business by Advisory Boards of Committees. Standing and other Sub-Committee as may be constituted from the time to time, and the term of office of their members;

(c) Procedure for appointment of the officers and the staff of the Council and the institutes and services established and maintained by the Council.

(d) The term and tenure of appointments, emoluments, allowances, rules of discipline and other conditions of service of the officers and staff of the Council; (e) Term and conditions governing scholarships, fellowship and deputations grant-in-aid research.

Kalpeswar Behera

2.10. That, the Regulations of the NCERT is promulgated w.e.f. 12.05.2011. As per Regulation 9, the "Establishment Committee" is the standing Committee of the Council. Regulation 10, provides members of the Standing Committee. The Regulation 9 & 10 may be reproduced below;

9. There shall be an Establishment Committee as one of the Standing Committees of the Council,

10. The Establishment Committee shall consist of: i The Director, NCERT Chairman

ii. The Joint Director, NCERT;

iii. A nominee of the Ministry of Education to be nominated by the President;

iv. Four educationists to be nominated by the President of whom at least one is a scientist, V. One representative from the Regional College of Education to be nominated by the President;

vi. One representative of the National Institute of Education, Delhi to be nominated by the President;

Kalpeswar Behera vii. Two representatives, one each from the regular academic and non-academic staff of the Council elected from amongst their Category in the manner prescribed in Appendix to this Regulation;

viii. Financial Adviser, NCERT;

ix. Secretary, NCERT, Member convener. As per Regulation 37(a) Executive Committee, shall by resolution, Lay down eligibility Conditions for different Categories of post. Regulation 37(a) is quoted below; 37 (a) the Executive Committee shall, by resolution, lay down eligibility conditions for the different categories of posts. However, the Jurisdiction and power of the Secretary is contained in Regulation 30,31,32,33 & 34 of the regulations,

30. All contracts duty approved by the competent authorities of the Council shall be executed and signed by the Secretary on behalf of the Council. With the prior approval of the Director of the Council, the Secretary may authorize other officers under his control to execute and sign agreements on behalf of the Council

Kalpeswar Behera in matters relating to advances, loens, mortgages etc. with the employee of the council.

31. With the prior approval of the Director, the Secretary shall have powers to file and defend suits and other proceeding on behalf of the Council and shall have powers to compromise, settle or refer to arbitration any disputes relating to the Council.

32. For purpose of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, the person whose name the Council may sue or he sued shall be the Secretary.

33. The Secretary shall be the custodian of all the records of the Council.

34. The Secretary shall be responsible for the proper maintenance of the accounts of the Council and their audit. From the reading of the aforesaid provisions, it can be concluded that the "Executive Committee" is the sole authority by resolution to lay down "eligibility conditions" for the different categories of posts and the "Executive Committee" has the power to frame rules & regulation not inconsistent with rule for administrative management of the affairs of the council. As such, the Executive

Kalpeswar Behera

Committee is the highest body of the NCERT to formulate and finalizes the eligibility conditions for different categories of post and also has the power to frame rules and regulations including the amendment.

2.11. That, the "NCERT" is an independent and autonomous body, has its own rules & regulations for the business of the Council and the Executive Committee has the power to frame rules & regulations for guiding the procedure for appointment and its terms & conditions. As such, it has its own procedure, formulated for promotion to different posts including the post the Professor. The applicant finds his eligibility w.e.f. 01.01.2009 as per rule. But, unfortunately, for the reason best known to authorities, there was never any circular or notification issued by the NCERT, for CAS (Career Advancement Scheme) promotion during the year 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 and the applicant was deprived to be considered for promotion in the year 2009 and thereafter although he has applied. However, in the year 2013, the selection was made and interview for the purpose was held on 15.03.2013, wherein, the applicant was unsuccessful. All the successful incumbents were promoted from the date of their eligibility itself, and had the applicant been selected, he would

Kalpeswar Behera have also been promoted from the date of eligibility i.e. on 01.01.2009.

2.12. That, it may also be important in the context that selection was also not conducted in 2014 and also 2015, for two years. However, the interview was conducted only on 23/24.02.2016 and the applicant was promoted to the post of Professor w.e.f. 17.12.2014, under the CAS, although he is eligible & entitled to be promoted as professor w.e.f. 01.01.2010 as per circular/order dated 09.12.2011 i.e. one year from the date of eligibility, i.e. 01.01.2009 only and by no other way. de

2.13. That, instead of considering the applicant for promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2010, the applicant was promoted as professor w.e.f. 17.12.2014, contrary to the 42nd decision of "Establishment Committee" by virtue of the Meeting held on 22.02.2012 approved by 97 the "Executive committee Meeting held on 20.07.2012 of the NCERT, confirming the Circular dated 09.12.2011.

2.14. That, the applicant, on being aggrieved by the injustice meted out to him, made several approaches to the authorities submitting therein that in view of the Circular dated 09.12.2011 of the NCERT and confirmation thereof, by of the "Executive

Kalpeswar Behera

Committee" to the effect, his case should be considered for promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2009.

2.15. That, however, vide order dated 21.11.2019, of the Under Secretary addressed to the Administrative Officer, RIE, BBSR, it is intimated that applicant's case cannot be considered as Council's order vide circular dated 09.12.2011, has been superseded by the Circular dated 01.02.2012.

2.16. That, the UGC Regulation was never followed in its true spirit and in contravention of the statutory regulations; the NCERT has acted in an arbitrary manner in completely prejudicial to the interest of the institution and the teachers. There never was any circular issued years together giving a go bye to the guidelines, whereby, career assessment is deferred time and again, adversely affecting the CAS promotion, of several teachers having all the eligibility and suitability in as much as many including the petitioner has faced stagnation for years together.

2.17. That, the UGC has issued guidelines with respect to the granting of benefits under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and for determination of the date of eligibility for promotion

Kalpeswar Behera

Under the scheme. It may be brought to the kind attention of the Court that, the Council (NCERT) has decided to consider the recommendations of the Committee under Prof DK Bhattachaya, Dean & Head, DTEE & Prof G. Ravindran the then Joint Director, NCERT. The Committee recommended the following taking cognizance of the UGC guideline in its true order & spirit. The relevant is extract is as follows. "Date of promotion should be from the date of eligibility independent of date of interview. In case of fresh candidates, the date of promotion should be the date of eligibility in case of rejected candidates, the date of promotion should be one year after the date of eligibility and in case of multiple rejections, the date of promotion should be decided by adding the number of rejections to the date of eligibility." It is also indicated in the selfsame order that Director, NCERT has accorded the aforesaid recommendation and all the pending cases to be examined afresh & decision to be confirmed by the concerned Executive Committee of the Council. The order is issued on 09.12.2011 by the NCERT.

Kalpeswar Behera

2.18 That, however, again, in supersession of the order dated 09.12.2011; another Circular dated 01.02.2012 is issued by the Council modifying the guidelines with respect to the date of eligibility for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). The same is thus; "Promotion under CAS of academic staff, whose candidature has been recommended in their first attempt.

(c) Old Cases: In the case of candidates who are recommended for promotion under CAS in the designated Selection Committee, in their first attempt itself, the date of applicability of CAS will be the date on which the candidate becomes eligible for promotion under CAS.

(d) Future Cases: In future, the candidates who apply within six months of becoming eligible for promotion under CAS. The date of their eligibility for granting benefits under CAS will be the date on which the candidates becomes eligible for promotion under CAS. In cases where the candidates applies after six months from the

Kalpeswar Behera

date of his/her eligibility, the date of applicability of CAS will be from the date of receipts of his/her application.

ii. Promotion under CAS of academic staff, whose candidature is rejected in their first attempt. In the case of candidates who are not recommended by the designated Selection Committee for promotion under CAS in their first attempt, the date of eligibility for availing benefit under CAS will be the date on which their candidature is recommended by the Selection Committee for promotion under CAS (the 02nd time). In case there is a delay in convening the meeting of the Selection Committee the date of applicability of CAS will be one year after the date on which the candidature was rejected for the first time. Similarity if the person is rejected to second time and so on, the date of eligibility for again being considered for promotion under CAS will be one year from the date of last rejection and so on.

2.19. That, however, in order & spirit of the UGC guidelines, the two committee (Bhattacharya Committee & Ravindran Committee) has recommended thus; Prof. Bhattacharjee Committee at Annexure VI (Page No.55)

Kalpeswar Behera

"Date of promotion should be from the date of eligibility, independent of date of interview. In case of fresh candidates, the date of promotion should be the date of eligibility. In case of rejected candidates, the date of promotion should be one year after, the date of eligibility and in case of multiple rejections, the date of promotion should be decided by adding the number of rejections to the date of eligibility." "Prof. Ravindra Committee at Annexure VI (Page No-62)

1. The cases not recommended by Screening Committee interview for not completing required Refresher/Orientation courses must not be treated as for rejection by the Selection Committee as the UGC had given relations for the same from time to time.

2. 2. Date of promotion should be from the date of eligibility, independent of date of interview.

3. In cases of fresh candidates the date of promotion should be the date of eligibility".

2.20. That, the "Establishment Committee of NCERT in its 42nd Meeting held on 22.02.2012, has sat for ratification of the circular & the committee has taken cognizance of 09.12.2011

Kalpeswar Behera order and also 01.02.2012 circular and however, accepted the decision taken by the Council vide order No. F.1-6/2000/E-1 dated 09.12.2011 and the Establishment Committee Confirmed the proceeding held on 22.02.2012 and ratified the decision taken by the Council on 09.12.2011 and the "Executive committee" vide its 97th Meeting held on 20.07.2012 has also approved the decision of the Establishment Committee meeting held on 22.02.2012. As such, the order dated 09.12.2011, has attained the finality and confirmed by the NCERT as the rule for CAS promotion. The Executive committee on 20.07.2012 has ratified the order dated 09.12.2011, as such, treated as the rule for CAS promotion.

2.21. That, it may be submitted in the context that while the 42nd Establishment Committee meeting on 22.02.2012 ratified the decision dated 09.12.2011 and the Executive Committee in 97th "Executive Committee" Meeting held on 20.07.2012 has approved the decision of the proceeding of the Establishment Committee held on 22.02.2012, there is no reflection of supersession of the Order dated 09.12.2011.

Kalpeswar Behera

2.22. That, the applicant when intimated by virtue of the Letter dated 21.11.2019 that his case is rejected by the Council on the basis of the Order dated 01.02.2012, he enquired in to the matter and ascertained that one Corrigendum is issued by the secretary on 26.4.2012, amending the Item No 6/page3 as indicated below; "The Committee ratified the decision taken by the Council vide- its order No.F.1.6/2000- E.1 dated 01.02.2012 regarding date of eligibility of academic staff for promotion under CAS" But, it is surprising to note that, this amendment or Corrigendum has was never reflected in Action taken Report of the Establishment Committee Meeting nor in the 97th Executive committee Meeting of NCERT held on 20.07.2012, nor it has been circulated by the NCERT at any point of time. It is respectfully stated that the corrigendum issued is without jurisdiction & without approved of the Executive Committee.

2.23. That, issuance of the Corrigendum dated 26.04.2012, if any, is a product of malafide and without Jurisdiction and without any authority of Law. Once the Executive Committee in 97th Meeting held on 20.07.2012 approved the decision of the proceeding on 22.02.2012, the order dated 09.12.2011, in

Kalpeswar Behera conformed & binding the Secretary, could not have issued any such amendment of the proceeding, without reference to the Executive Committee Meeting in as much as nothing is also reflected in 98th Executive Committee Meeting held on 3.12.2012. The Secretary has no authority to amend or modify the decision of the Council without meeting of Establishment Committee and approval of the Executive Committee. From the close reading of the "Rules" and "Regulations" of the NCERT, it can be seen that, the same nowhere gives any authority to issue any order by way of amendment or orders without any meeting and approval of the Executive Committee. The Secretary, as such, has no Jurisdiction and authority to modify & amend the decision of Executive Committee, which has approved the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 22.02.2012 in its 42 meeting. The 42nd Meeting, Establishment Committee has ratified only the decision taken by the Council in its order No 1- 6/2000/E-1 dated 09/12/2011, in spite of the fact that both the 09.12.2011 and 01.02.2012 circulars were placed. The Executive Committee, once accepted the decision of the Establishment Committee dated 09.12.2011, there cannot be any amendment or modification of the resolution by the Establishment Committee.

Kalpeswar Behera

Therefore, the "Amendment issued by the order of Secretary has to be struck down, as without Jurisdiction and without any authority of Law.

3. The respondents have filed their counter stating as follows: 3.1 For the purpose of granting benefits under the CAS, Commm constituted under the Chairmanship of Prof. D.K Bhattacharjee, the then Dean and Head, DTEE and Prof. G. Ravindra, the then Joint Director for taking a decision on the date of eligibility. Prof. Bhattacharjee committee recommended thus:- "Date of promotion should be from the date of eligibility, independent of date of interview. In case of fresh candidates, the date of promotion should be the date of eligibility. In case of rejected candidates, the date of promotion should be one year after the date of eligibility. And in case of multiple rejections, the date of promotion should be decided by adding the number of rejections to the date of eligibility." Prof. Ravindra Committee recommended thus:-

Kalpeswar Behera

"i. The cases not recommended by Screening Committee for interview for not completing required refresher/operation courses must not be treated as rejection by the Selection Committee as the UGC had given relations for the same from time to time.

ii. Date of promotion should be date of eligibility, independent of date of interview.

iii. In case of fresh candidates, the date of promotion should be the date of eligibility.

iv. In case of candidates rejected at the 1" attempt, the date of promotion should be one year after the date of eligibility. v. In case of multiple rejections of a candidate, the date of promotion should be decided by adding the number of rejections to the date of eligibility." And order was also issued for implementation of the recommendations vide Order No.-F/1-6/2000/E.I dt.09.12.2011. The matter was further examined and the Council Traff guidelines with the approval of the Director.

Kalpeswar Behera

"The conditions included promotion under CAS of academic staff whose candidature is rejected in their first attempt, the date of eligibility for availing benefit under CAS will be the date on which their candidature is recommended by the Selection Committee for promotion under CAS (the second time). In case there is a delay in convening the meeting of the Selection Committee, the date of applicability of CAS will be one year after the date on which the candidature was rejected for the first time. Similarly, if the person is rejected a second time and so on, the date of eligibility for being considered for promotion under CAS will be one year from the date of last rejection and so on." The aforesaid matter was placed before the Establishment Committee for ratification of the guidelines for granting benefits to academic staff under CAS. While considering ratification of the decision taken by the Council on 01.02.2012, wrongly the date has been reflected as 09.12.2011 and for making necessary corrections, a corrigendum was issued on 26.04.2012 wherein necessary amendment of the date was made with the approval of the Chairperson of the Establishment Committee.

Kalpeswar Behera

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. The applicant has filed MA No. 621 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay stating that for the first time, it was disclosed in the rejection order that the circular dated 09.12.2011 is superseded by circular 01.02.2012, therefore the applicant obtained the circular through the association and the same is also under challenged as without jurisdiction. It is submitted that after the promotion on 14.03.2016 the applicant made representations to the authorities which was forwarded by the college administration to the NCERT, New Delhi on 25.102019 and the reply of the same was communicated to the college vide letter dated 21.11.2019. Therefore the delay is not intention and deliberate.

6. The respondents have filed their objection to MA.

7. In a similar case in OA No. 825 of 2016 (Dr. BhujendraNath Panda vrs Union of India &Ors) this Tribunal vide order dated 03.03.2022 had held:

5. Instead of going into the merits of the case, so far as maintainability of this

0. A. is concerned, we find that the applicant has filed this 0.A. on 01.11.2016 challenging his date of placement vide promotion order dated 05.08.2013. On the face of this, it is palpable that the applicant has approached this Tribunal belatedly. In his application seeking condonation of delay, M.A. 46/2017, the

Kalpeswar Behera applicant has taken a plea that after his promotion order dated 05.08.2013, he kept representing the authorities and after rejection of his last representation on 23.10.2015, he has approached this Tribunal on 01.11.2016. Hence, the delay, if any, caused should be condoned. The Tribunal noticed that the case of the applicant was not found suitable by the Selection Committee in 2005 and 2011 and he was subsequently recommended for promotion by the Selection Committee in 2013 and was accorded promotion w.e.f. 17.10.2012 as per order dated 01.02.2012. It would not be out of place to mention that there might be several others who got promotion before the promotion of the applicant, which also gains support from the averment of the applicant in his pleadings that many of his juniors have been promoted before his promotion. Hence, the 0.A. is also hit by nonjoinder of necessary parties. Besides that submission of successive representation to the authorities cannot be a ground to condone the delay.

6. In catena of cases, law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding interference in the case of delay in approaching the Tribunal/Court. In the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and ors. Vs. MuraliBabu, AIR 2014 SC 1141, the Hon’ble Apex Court have heavily come down on the Courts/Tribunals for entertaining matters without considering the statutory provision of filing application belatedly. The relevant portion of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court as contained in para 16 is quoted herein below: “Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable Jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a

Kalpeswar Behera lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” Further, in the matter of Lanka VenkateswarluVs. State of AP, (2011) 4 SCC 363, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “26. The High Court proceeded to condone the delay. In our opinion, such a course was not open to the High Court, given the pathetic explanation offered by the respondents in the application seeking condonation of delay.” In the case of State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013(6) SLR 629, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive.

7. In our considered view, the explanation offered for condonation of delay is neither sufficient nor satisfactory and thus does not merit consideration. In view of the discussions made above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), the 0.A. is dismissed on the ground of undue delay and non joinder of necessary parties. Parties to bear their own costs.

8. In the present case also the applicant even though got promotion in the year 2016 is seeking to antedate the promotion and has filed this OA in the year 2020. Even though he is challenging the order dated 21.11.2019, the crux of the challenge is to corrigendum dated 26.04.2012. The applicant has not been able to explain the delay and mere filing of representations would

Kalpeswar Behera not save the delay as held be Hon’ble Apex Court in several decisions quoted above.

9. Therefore the OA is dismissed being hit by delay and laches. MA No. 921/2020 also stands dismissed. Pending MA’s stands disposed of. No costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Kalpeswar Behera