Sushil Kumar Dubey Petitioner v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J.:— Heard on admission.

2. Petitioner appeared in Madhya Pradesh State Local Fund Audit Sub-ordinate Account Service Examination February 2012 (Part II). In paper A the petitioner obtained 70 marks out of 100 and in paper B he got 30 marks out of 100. Attributing the low marks to the alleged defective marking of Q. No. 4B petitioner seeks direction to the authorities to revaluate the answer script and by awarding him 10 marks extend the consequential benefit of appointment promotion and the remuneration.

3. In the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for two reasons; firstly, that there is no statutory provisions commended at as would obligate the authorities to cause revaluation of the answer scripts. Secondly, the petition is highly belated. That, the exams being over in the year 2012 and the position having been settled. The petitioner having acquiesced to the same. The issue cannot be raked up after four years.

4. It this context reference can be had of decision in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 it has been held-

“53. Needless to say that Limitation Act 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and laches.

54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See Rup Diamonds v. Union of India [(1989) 2 SCC 356], State of Karnataka v. S.M Kotraya [(1996) 6 SCC 267 and Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (1997) 6 SCC 538.”

5. Division Bench of this Court in Focus Energy Ltd. v. Government of India, (DB) I.L.R (2011) M.P 53; relying upon judgments of the Apex Court observed-

“10-Thus, facts stated supra leads to irresistible conclusion that appellant is guilty of delay and laches. Its conduct disentitles it to any relief. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278 : AIR 2007 SC 1365 the Supreme Court has held that delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48 the Supreme Court has observed that discretionary relief can be provided to one who has not by his act or conduct given a gobye to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant. In the State of Haryana v. Aravali Khanij Udyog, (2008) 1 SCC 663 it has been held that where third party rights are created, the High Court should not interfere. Similarly, in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) it has been held that the Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third parties crystallizes in the interregnum.”

6. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.