Mere Rejection Of Representation Does Not Give Fresh Cause Of Action In Service Matters: J&K&L High Court

The Court was hearing a review petition filed seeking review of an order passed by a learned Single Judge whereby a writ petition seeking a direction to revisit the petitioner's seniority and fix it either at the bottom of the 30th Batch or at the top of the 31st Batch of Assistant Commandants in CRPF was dismissed on account of delay and laches.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the review petition, referenced C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another, (2008) 10 SCC 115, and observed,

".... that every representation to the Government for relief may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. The replies to such representations cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim."

The review petitioner had appeared in a competitive examination in 1997 for selection to the post of CPO (Assistant Commandant) and was selected in the 30th Batch of CPOs-1996. However, his appointment order was delayed as the department could not obtain the verification/antecedent report from relevant authorities belatedly, as a consequence of which he could not undergo the requisite training with the 30th Batch.

When the police verification report was received, the 30th and 31st Batches had already commenced training, and he was offered appointment with the 32nd Batch. Due to the ailment of his mother, he sought a six-month extension to undergo training, which was acceded to. After expiry of six months, he was asked to undergo training with the 33rd Batch. Upon successful completion, he made representations to reckon his seniority along with his original batch-mates of the 30th Batch, but his representations were rejected.

The respondents raised an objection that the writ petition was afflicted with delay and laches. They contended that the petitioner's seniority had been fixed in accordance with Rule 8(b)(ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 read with DOP&P OM dated 09.08.1995.

The petitioner had been allowed to join training with the 33rd Batch subject to the condition that his seniority would be assigned as per letter dated 15.03.2000. His inter se seniority was fixed above the 33rd Batch in which he underwent training. His representation was rejected, following which he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which was dismissed as withdrawn, and thereafter filed the writ petition before the J&K High Court in 2017.

The learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground of delay and laches, noting that the petitioner had entered the department in 2000 but challenged his seniority only in 2017, and that during the period of more than seven years, inter se rights had crystallized.

The review petitioner sought review on the ground that inaction in fixing seniority gives rise to a perpetual cause of action, and that the Writ Court had erroneously recorded that the petitioner had agitated his grievance for the first time in 2017 ignoring that he had approached the Jharkhand High Court in 2011.

Court's Observation

The Court first noted the legal position regarding the scope of review jurisdiction under Rule 65 of the High Court Rules read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, that the power of review can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or discovery of new and important matter of evidence, or for any sufficient reason akin to the aforesaid two grounds.

Examining the facts, the Court found that the petitioner was in knowledge of his seniority position right from the day it was fixed. The Court framed the question whether merely making representations to the department can renew the cause of action in favour of an aggrieved litigant.

The Court held that the law on this aspect is very clear. It remarked,

"Filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. The issue of delay and laches is an important factor in exercise of discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and he acquiesces with the situation, he cannot be heard after a couple of years to challenge the impugned action of the employer."

Referring to State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (2013) 12 SCC 179, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had observed that making representations that fall on deaf ears does not cure delay, and that the cause of action arises when the junior employee is promoted, not when the representation is rejected.

The Court also relied upon State of Tamil Nadu v. Seshachalam (2007) 10 SCC 137, wherein the Supreme Court observed that filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation and that delay or laches is a relevant factor for a Court of law to determine.

The Court concluded that representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation cannot cure the delay and laches in filing a writ petition, and that making repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay.

Even assuming the petitioner approached the Jharkhand High Court in 2011, the Court held that this was about nine years after his seniority was fixed, and was still grossly belated. The Court further observed,

".. A Writ Court cannot brush aside delay and laches lightly, particularly when, during the interregnum, the situation has changed and the rights have been crystalized to the prejudice of the litigant approaching the Court belatedly. In the present case, by the time the review petitioner approached the Court, the rights of the officers, whose seniority had been fixed above him, had already been crystalized and the petitioner without impleading such officers as parties to the writ petition could not have taken a belated resort to the writ jurisdiction of the Court."

The High Court thus found no error, much less an error apparent on the face of the record of the order sought to be reviewed, that would persuade the Court to recall the order passed by the learned Writ Court. The review petition was dismissed as being bereft of any merit.

Case Title: Manish Kumar Bharti v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment