ORDER
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 7.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 2370/2007, filed under the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005.
2. The facts briefly are that by an advertisement published in June 2005 in the news paper “Rozgar and Nirman”, applications were invited for 883 posts of Constable (General Duty) and out of 883 posts, 97 posts were to be filled in the 10th Battalion, SAF, Sagar. In response to the advertisement, the appellant applied and he went through successfully a physical test and thereafter he appeared in the written examination in July 2005 and was selected along with other candidates for interview. After the interview, the select list of 97 candidates was prepared and in the select list, the name of the appellant found place amongt the successful candidates at serial No. 13 of the list pertaining to General Category. The list was sent to the respondent No. 3 Inspector General of Police, Special Armed Force, Jabalpur Range, for approval but the respondent No. 3 rejected the same by order dated 23.8.2005 on the ground Writ Appeal No1880 of 2007 that in the answer-sheets of some of the candidates, there was some over-writing and interpolation. The order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the Inspector General of Police was challenged before the High Court of M.P. in W.P. No. 9308/2005; W.P. No. 9582/2005; W.P. No. 10573/2005 and W.P. No. 12492/2005 by some of the successful candidates and by a common order dated 25.9.2006, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order dated 23.8.2005 passed by the Inspector General of Police after holding that the authorities should have only cancelled the result of those candidates whose answer-sheets contained overwriting or interpolation and should not have cancelled the result of other candidates.
3. Aggrieved, the respondents filed W.A. No. 1286/2006, W.A. No. 1287/2006 and W.A. No. 1425/2006 against the common order dated 25.9.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in the four writ petitions and a Division Bench of this Court while upholding the common order dated 25.9.2006 of the learned Single Judge directed that the relief granted by the learned Single Judge by a common order should be restricted to the writ petitioners and should not be extended to persons who had not come to the Court. Thereafter, a fresh select list was drawn up but the name of the appellant was not included in the select list because he had not filed writ petition at the first instance along with Writ Petitions No. 9308/2005; 9582/2005; 10573/2005 and 12492/2005. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 2370/2007(s) contending that his name should have been included in the select list prepared afresh pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier batch of writ petitions as modified by the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals. By the impugned order dated 17.10.2007 the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition No. 2370/2007(s) after holding that the Division Bench in the writ appeals has directed that the relief should be restricted only to the writ petitioners and should not be extended to those who had not approached the Court after relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India and Ors. .
4. Mr. Atul Awasthi, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant was not party to the Writ Appeals Nos.1286/2006, 1287/2006 and 1425/2006 in which the Division Bench passed the order dated 11.7.2007 restricting the relief granted by the learned Single Judge in earlier batch of writ petitions only to the writ petitioners and hence the common order dated 11.7.2007 of the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals Nos.1286/2006, 1287/2006 and 1425/2006 is not binding on the present appellant. He further submitted that it is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. that writ petition for enforcement of fundamental rights cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He argued that the learned Single Judge, therefore, was not right in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant only on the ground of delay and laches when the appellant could have otherwise been selected on the basis of his merit position.
5. Mr. Rahul Jain, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) on which the learned Single Judge has relied on in the impugned order in which it has been held that inordinate and unexplained delay and laches is by itself a ground for refusal to grant a relief to the petitioner irrespective of the merit of this case.
6. We have perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) cited by Mr. Jain and we find that in the said decision the Apex Court has held that if a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long and thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he was not interested in claiming that relief, then others are justified in acting on that belief and this is more so in service matters where vacancies are required to be filled up. The Supreme Court found in the facts Writ Appeal No1880 of 2007 of that case that Bhoop Singh who had been terminated from service, challenged the order of termination after lapse of 22 years without any cogent explanation for the inordinate delay and thereafter filed a writ petition for reinstatement on the ground that others similarly dismissed had been reinstated pursuant to their earlier writ petitions filed by them. Hence by the time he approached the Court after 22 years, the vacancy of Bhoop Singh had been filled up and number of recruitments had taken place to different vacancies thereafter and by the inordinate and unexplained delay, a situation had been created, which could not be reversed by his reinstatement.
7. In the present case, on the other hand, the claim of the appellant is that he had been in fact selected in the select list of General Category candidates and had been placed at serial No. 13 in the select list of the General Category candidates. Pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeals No. 1286/2006, 1287/2006 and 1425/2006 on 11.7.2007, a fresh select list may have been made but the appointment orders were yet to be issued when the appellant filed the writ petition No. 2370/2007. It will be extremely unfair and unreasonable if the appellant was not considered for such selection if his answer-script did not contain any interpolation or over-writing. In our considered opinion, the fundamental rights of the appellant under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to equal opportunity in the matter of public employment would be grossly violated if the appellant was not considered for the selection to the posts of Constable.
8. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra):
Moreover, it may be noticed that the claim for enforcement of the fundamental right of equal opportunity under Article 16 is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 32 and this Court which has Writ Appeal No1880 of 2007 been assigned the role of a sentinel on the qui-vive for protection of the fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be persuaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground of laches, delay or the like.
9. Mr. Atul Awasthi, Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned single Judge has further observed that the appellant has not filed a copy of the order passed in W.A. No. 1286 of 2006 and has also not mentioned about the modification order passed by the Court while deciding W.A. No. 1286 of 2006 and, therefore, the appellant has suppressed material facts in W.P. No. 2370 of 2007. He submitted that while the Writ Petition No. 2370 of 2007 was filed on 12.2.2007, the order in W.A. No. 1286 of 2006 was passed on 11.7.2007, hence the question of the appellant suppressing the fact of the Division Bench having passed the order in W.A. No. 1286 of 2006 did not arise. We agree with Mr. Atul Awasthi, Learned Counsel for the appellant that W.P. No. 2370 of 2007 having been filed prior to the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1286 of 2006, the appellant cannot be held guilty of suppression of material facts in the writ petition.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ appeal and direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for selection if his answer-scripts did not contain any interpolation or overwriting.