Can't unsettle things at behest of person careless about his rights: HC

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, May 26

Settled things cannot be unsettled at the behest of a person careless about his rights and claim, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted in case of a judicial officer, who “slept over” his rights for 11 years before waking up from slumber to approach the Court.

Interference not permissible

Settled things cannot be permitted to be unsettled at the behest of a person who has not been careful enough with regard to his rights and claim, if any. At this belated stage, interference by way of this writ petition for setting aside the final merit list as prepared on March 31, 2011, will not be permissible. Punjab and Haryana High Court Bench

The judicial officer had approached the court for quashing final merit-wise result declared on March 31, 2011, on the ground that less marks were assigned to him for the ACRs. He was entitled to 10 marks, but was granted only nine.

His stand in the matter was that he came to know about the fact after he was impleaded as a party to a case.

It was in this petition that the criterion was disclosed. Thereafter, he moved a representation in September 2018.

The Bench asserted they had perused the pleadings and found the present writ petition was “highly belated”, especially as the petitioner was a judicial officer, who slept over his rights for 11 years. He had now woken from his slumber all of a sudden and approached the court.

Prompt action on his part was required to be taken, had he been so keen or aggrieved as was sought to be projected in the present writ petition.

The Bench added: “Settled things cannot be permitted to be unsettled at the behest of a person who has not been careful enough with regard to his rights and claim, if any. At this belated stage, interference by way of this writ petition for setting aside the final merit list as prepared on March 31, 2011, would not be permissible”.

It was a settled principle of law that the belated and stale pleas could not be allowed to be racked up at the instance of a person not vigilant enough regarding his own rights.

“Present is the case where he himself is a judicial officer and has not taken prompt action for redressal of grievance, if any, of his,” the Bench added.

Dismissing the petition after observing that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court over a period of time had been followed by the hich Court consistently.