The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed the review petition filed by Manish Kumar Bharti seeking review of the order dated 03.12.2020 whereby his writ petition (SWP No.1283/2017) was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the petitioner was aware of the fixation of his seniority since 2002 and that making repeated representations to the department or the rejection thereof in 2009 did not give rise to a fresh cause of action so as to condone the inordinate delay in approaching the Court.
The petitioner had appeared in the competitive examination in 1997 for the post of Assistant Commandant (CPO) in CRPF and was selected in the 30th Batch. Due to delay in obtaining police verification/antecedent report, he could not join training with his original batch. He was offered appointment with the 32nd Batch but sought extension due to his mother’s ailment and ultimately underwent training with the 33rd Batch. His seniority was fixed above the 33rd Batch in accordance with the applicable rules. He made representations since 2002 seeking placement at the bottom of the 30th Batch or top of the 31st Batch. His representation was rejected in 2009. He approached the High Court of Jharkhand in 2011, which was dismissed as withdrawn, and filed the writ petition before the J&K High Court only in 2017.
The Writ Court had dismissed the petition primarily on the ground of delay and laches, observing that the petitioner entered service in 2000 but challenged his seniority after more than 17 years, during which period the inter se rights of other officers had crystallized. In the review petition, it was contended that the Writ Court committed an error apparent on the face of record by ignoring the earlier petition filed in Jharkhand and that inaction in fixing proper seniority gives rise to a perpetual cause of action.
Rejecting the review petition, the Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under review jurisdiction. The Court observed that filing of representations alone does not save the period of limitation. Mere replies to representations relating to stale claims cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a dead claim. The Court reiterated that delay and laches is a relevant factor in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and a person who acquiesces with the situation for years cannot be permitted to challenge the action belatedly, especially when rights of third parties have crystallized. The petitioner had failed to implead the affected officers whose seniority was placed above him.
Placing reliance upon C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008) 10 SCC 115, State of Uttaranchal v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari (2013) 12 SCC 179, and State of Tamil Nadu v. Seshachalam (2007) 10 SCC 137, the Court held that the Writ Court had rightly refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the review petitioner. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed being bereft of any merit.
Case Details:
Title: Manish Kumar Bharti v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: RP No.01/2021 in SWP No.1283/2017
Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Date of Judgment: 08.05.2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 