Gold Medal Claim Raised After Nine Years Cannot Be Entertained: J&K&L High Court Dismisses Doctor's Appeal Against Kashmir University

The Court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed against the order passed by a Single Judge whereby the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent-University to provide a Gold Medal allegedly awarded to the appellant in view of his merit position was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar, while observing that “the appellant has taken vacillating and inconsistent stands at three separate stages of the litigation,” held that “this shifting nomenclature demonstrates that the appellant is unsure of his own case, having lost sight of the true facts owing to the passage of time.”

The appellant had filed a writ petition claiming that Chapter XI of the Kashmir University Statutes dealing with Medals and Prizes provides that Gold Medals shall be conferred annually upon candidates securing the first position in order of merit. He contended that he was cited to attend the Convocation in the year 2014 for presentation of a Gold Medal and certificate of merit, which ceremony was presided over by the then Governor as Chancellor of the University.

According to his initial case, he received the Gold Medal and certificate but was subsequently constrained to return the medal on the ground of an asserted shortage of medals for meritorious students, subject to an assurance that the same would be restored to him as soon as fresh medals were received.

The respondent-University opposed the claim, contending that under the relevant University Statutes, no Gold Medal is provided at the postgraduate level in the appellant's discipline, and that Statute X of the University disentitles first-position holders in the MD course from receiving a Gold Medal.

The respondent also raised a preliminary objection as to delay and laches, noting that the petition was belatedly filed in the year 2023 regarding a cause of action that allegedly arose in the year 2014, and categorically denied that any Gold Medal was ever handed over to the appellant.

The Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches, observing that the appellant was merely invited to receive a certificate of merit, which had already been duly awarded. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present intra-court appeal.

Court's Observations:

The High Court noted that the appellant had taken inconsistent stands across three stages of litigation. In the writ petition, he claimed that he was awarded both a certificate and a Gold Medal at the 2014 Convocation, which was subsequently retrieved. In the memo of appeal, he set up an entirely new case, asserting that the first Convocation took place in 2013, where he was awarded a certificate of merit dated 13.11.2013 along with a Gold Medal, and that both were returned.

The Court further noted that In the rejoinder affidavit, he again took a divergent stand, stating that during the first convocation he was provided the certificate of merit dated 13.11.2013 along with the Gold Medal, and that post-convocation he was asked to return the certificate.

The Court observed,

“... A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant has taken vacillating and inconsistent stands at three separate stages of the litigation. This shifting nomenclature demonstrates that the appellant is unsure of his own case, having lost sight of the true facts owing to the passage of time.”

The Court noted that the cause of action allegedly arose in the year 2014, yet the writ petition was filed only after a lapse of nine years, in 2023. It held,

“... Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, correctly concluded that the petition was barred by doctrine of 'delay and laches'. It was incumbent upon the appellant to pursue his remedy within a reasonable timeframe. He cannot cite administrative inertia to gloss over an inordinate delay of nine years in approaching the court, especially given that his own vacillating stance reveals an uncertainty about the facts of his case, and the respondent has fundamentally disputed his entitlement to the relief.”

Relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini and others, 2024 INSC 728, the Court quoted,

“... The irrefutable fact remains that the respondents/writ petitioners slept over the matter for decades together which, in itself, indicates lack of merit. They should have, therefore, been prevented from raising issues that were stale and forgotten.” The Court also noted the observation that a Constitutional Court should be convinced that the case warrants exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, and that discretionary relief can only be obtained upon fully satisfying the Court that the delay was justified and explainable.

The Court held,

“... We are of the considered view that the appellant has set up conflicting narratives at different stages, having taken vacillating stands before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court. Given that the appellant is unsure of his own case, his plea lacks the merit required to warrant judicial intervention. The learned writ court, therefore, correctly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of gross delay and laches.”

The High Court thus found the appeal to be misconceived and dismissed it. The judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches was affirmed.

Case Title: Ibrar Bashir Shirazi v. University of Kashmir

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment