Belated, unsupported allegations of fraudulent appointment do not warrant judicial interference.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of her writ petition, which sought a direction requiring SECL to decide her representation concerning alleged fraud in the identity under which Ram Kishun Sahu obtained employment and the consequential benefits received by his family.

She alleged that Ram Kishun Sahu had misrepresented himself as Krishna Kumar Sahu, that respondent No. 4 later obtained compassionate appointment, and that respondent No. 5 received pensionary benefits.

SECL had asked her to provide supporting material, and she claimed to have submitted it; however, the Division Bench found that no relevant supporting material had been placed before the Single Judge.

The Single Judge dismissed the petition, citing the circumstances and delay.

The Division Bench first condoned a 75-day delay in filing the appeal, then heard and dismissed it on the merits.

Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition seeking consideration of the appellant’s complaint about alleged fraud in the employment and related service benefits

Whether the Division Bench should interfere where the allegations were unsupported by relevant material and the complaint was made after substantial delay

Whether the 75-day delay in filing the writ appeal should be condoned

The judgment cites no statute, precedent, or specific legal test.

It applies the principles that a party advancing allegations must discharge the initial burden of supporting them with relevant material, and that a court may decline relief where a claim is unsupported and suffers from delay and laches.

In considering the appeal-delay application, the Court accepted that the appellant’s pursuit of a representation and an RTI application to obtain documents provided sufficient grounds to condone the delay.

The Court found that the appellant had made serious but unsupported allegations and had not explained how she was aggrieved by Ram Kishun Sahu’s appointment.

It also observed that the complaint was lodged belatedly, after Ram Kishun Sahu had died in service, respondent No. 4 had received compassionate appointment, and respondent No. 5 was receiving pensionary benefits.

In those circumstances, and given the absence of material supporting the allegations, the Court held that the Single Judge had committed no illegality warranting appellate interference.

Separately, it condoned the appeal delay because the appellant had pursued a representation and sought documents under the RTI Act.

It answered the merits against the appellant, holding that the unsupported allegations and delay and laches justified dismissal of the writ petition and disclosed no error by the Single Judge.

The writ appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.