Procrastination Greatest Thief Of Time, High Court Rejects Plea Of Punjab Judiciary Aspirants Whose Selections Were Cancelled Back In 2002

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea of two judiciary candidates, whose selection was cancelled in 2002 for alleged involvement in recruitment scam, seeking appointment.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel cited delay on part of the candidate in approaching the Court, after they were acquitted in the corruption case in 2016.

The division bench said, "This Court, while testing the plea of the petitioners, is pertinently required to lift the veil so as to see whether such plea satisfies the touchstone of doctrine of laches. Further, multiple recruitment advertisements have been issued and selections have been made in pursuance thereof since the petitioner's selection was terminated in the year 2002. Keeping in view the entirety of facts/circumstances involved in the present matter, there cannot be two opinions regarding the writ petition in hand being barred by laches."

Speaking for the bench Justice Goel said, "delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant –– a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, firstly, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time', secondly, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."

The doctrine of laches is not merely a technical stratagem available to a respondent but an axiomatic corollary of equity & justice. It is a juridical imperative, incumbent upon the court, to preclude the resurrection of moribund, antiquated, & time-barred claims, lest the fount of justice be polluted by the revival of settled disputes, the Court added.

The plea was filed by Punjab Civil Judge 2002 candidate, whose representations filed in 2017 were rejected. 

In 2002, the Registrar General of the Court conveyed that the recruitment letters made in favour of the petitioners were terminated on account of a recruitment scam having surfaced.

The petitioners, alongwith other accused, faced trial in respect of the FIR No.64 dated 05.09.2002 registered under Sections 8/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in 2016, the petitioners were acquitted.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations of recruitment scam turned out to be mis-founded as the petitioners had been acquitted by the concerned Sessions Court.

Once the entire foundation of cancellation of the appointment letters issued to the petitioners has effaced in view of the judgment of the acquittal passed by the concerned Sessions Court, the authorities ought to have, forthwith, restored the appointment letters issued earlier in favour of the petitioners, he added.

After hearing the submissions, the Court considered the question, "whether the writ petition in hand satisfies the rigours of Doctrine of laches so as to deserve adjudication on merits thereof."

The bench noted that, "For filing of a writ petition, indubitably, no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be cognised as to whether within a reasonable time the same has been invoked and, even that submitting of representation(s) would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances, on the ground of delay and laches alone, the writ ought to be dismissed or the writ- petitioner ought to be non-suited."

In certain circumstances, delay and laches may not be fatal, but in most circumstances inordinate delay would invite disaster for the litigant, who knocks at the doors of the Court, it added.

In the present case, the Court highlighted that the communication for cancellation of selection was received by the petitioners in the year 2002 whereas the representations, rejection whereof has been made the basis of challenge in the writ petition in hand, were preferred in the year 2016.

"The much belated representation preferred by petitioners and decision thereupon is sought to be employed as shelter by petitioners to alleviate the laches at their end," it added.

In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea on the ground of laches.

Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arshdeep Bhullar, Advocate and Ms. Manveer Narang, Advocate for respondent No.3. 

Title: Navdeep Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 109

Click here to read/download the order