Limitation Essential Criteria in Entertaining Suit to Review Dismissal of Teacher: Chhattisgarh HC
10th June 2021, the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Saroj Dahre v. State of Chhattisgarh held that unreasonable delay in filing a suit seeking review and setting aside the institute’s order of dismissal of teacher cannot be entertained.
Single Judge Bench comprising of Justice P. Sam Koshy held:
So far as the delay and latches are concerned, the law in this regard is by now well settled by a series of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The question of delay and laches came to be considered recently by the Supreme Court in case of “State of Uttaranchal and Anothers v, Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others”, reported in 2013 (12) SCC 179 in which the court has declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in case the petitioner invokes jurisdiction of Court with inordinate delay, and held as under:
In State of T.N. v. Seshchalam, this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: –
…filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.
The petitioner was appointed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-II; a teaching post that cannot be kept vacant for a long period of time. For 2 years he remained absent from service on account of his health condition. Following 2 years, after his recovery, he made regular correspondences with the authorities and he came to know on 15.05.2015 that his services had been terminated.
The petitioner filed a writ petition on 15.03.2021 for setting aside the order of his termination from service after a gap of 6 years. He stated in his pleading that after being informed about his termination from the service, he has been making representation before the authorities with no documentary evidence showing his effort to join the duty in 2014 or the subsequent years.
The court relied on Supreme Court cases, Chennai Metropolitian Water Supply and sewerage Board and Others v. T.T. Murali Babu held that the delay in filing ligation may impact the rights of any other’s ripened rights and observed that a suit which is delayed without any proper ground is beyond limitation and cannot be entertained.
Accordingly, the case was disposed of.
 2014 (4) SCC 108
Rasmita Behera | Research Intern | EduLegaL
Swapna Iyer | Legal Editor | EduLegaL