(A) Service Law – Appointment – No relief – Held: The Court would necessarily have to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has a right to be appointed as a selected candidates against the vacant post of Extension Officer. Such a conclusion is not possible in this case firstly, on account of the fact that there is no such pleading in the writ petition. Secondly, the petitioner himself, having questioned the validity of the selection processing by seeking an enquiry into the matter, cannot now turn back and seek appointment against one of the posts sought to be filled up by the same recruitment process. (Para 18)
(B) Service Law – Delay and Laches – Lapse of 28 years – No relief can be granted – To entertain the plea of the petitioner for appointment in the post of Extension Officer, this Court would have to set aside the appointment of one of the selected candidates, who was below the petitioner in the select list. After the lapse of more than 28 years since their appointment, more particularly, when some of them have already expired or retired from service and are drawing pension, such an order would be highly inequitable. In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, this Court would be reluctant in granting such relief merely because of the fact that some candidates below the petitioner in the select list had been appointed by ignoring his claim, more so, since there is no challenge to their appointment orders in the present case. (Para 19)
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
2023 STPL(Web) 104 Gauhati
[GAHC010004062010]
Tilak Nath Vs. The State Of Assam And Ors
WP(C) 997 of 2010-Decided on 20-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-104-Gauhati.pdf