Belated writ challenges to rehabilitation-policy appointments are barred by laches absent sufficient justification.

Land bearing Khasra No. 434/4, measuring 2.03 acres, was acquired by the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (“CSPGCL”). The land stood recorded in the name of Makhanlal Patel. Respondent No. 4 claimed entitlement through his father, Gaurilal Patel, on the basis of a Will dated 21 April 1997 allegedly executed by Makhanlal, and was nominated for appointment under the applicable rehabilitation policy. He was appointed on 31 July 2012 and joined service on 7 August 2012

The appellant challenged respondent No. 4’s appointment by filing WPS No. 2588 of 2019 on 31 March 2019, approximately seven years after the appointment. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches and held that respondent No. 4 had been validly nominated by the landholder

The appellant had also instituted Civil Suit No. 08-A/2014, which was dismissed on 24 December 2018. In Civil Appeal No. 05-A/2019, the First Appellate Court subsequently allowed the appeal on 29 January 2022 and held the alleged Will to be forged. However, the judgments in those civil proceedings were not placed before the learned Single Judge and were produced for the first time in the writ appeal

The Division Bench condoned the 55-day delay in filing the writ appeal but dismissed the appeal on merits

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, despite the appellant’s challenge to the alleged Will and nomination supporting respondent No. 4’s appointment?

2. Whether the Division Bench could rely upon the subsequent civil appellate judgment holding the Will to be forged when that judgment and the related documents had not been placed before the learned Single Judge?

3. Whether the alleged invalidity of the Will and nomination, involving disputed questions of fact, could be adjudicated in the writ appeal so as to direct removal of respondent No. 4 from service?

The Court applied the principles that a writ petition challenging an appointment must be brought within a reasonable time and may be rejected on the ground of delay and laches where the challenge is made after a substantial and unexplained lapse of time.

It further applied the principle that an intra-court appellate court ordinarily examines the legality and correctness of the Single Judge’s order on the basis of the material that was before the Single Judge, and a party cannot ordinarily assail that order on the basis of documents produced for the first time in appeal

The Court also applied the rule that disputed questions of fact, including the validity of a Will and the authenticity of a nomination, are generally inappropriate for determination in writ jurisdiction, particularly when a mandamus for removal from service is sought after a considerable delay

The Court held that respondent No. 4 had been appointed in 2012 and that the appellant questioned the appointment only in 2019, after an unexplained delay of approximately seven years. This prolonged delay justified the learned Single Judge’s refusal to grant relief, particularly because respondent No. 4 had already entered service

Although the appellant relied on the First Appellate Court’s 2022 finding that the Will was forged, that judgment was subsequent to the Single Judge’s order and had not been produced in the writ proceedings. The Division Bench therefore declined to reassess the Single Judge’s decision on the basis of material not previously placed before him

Further, the validity of the Will and the nomination involved contested factual issues that could not appropriately be resolved in the writ appeal. In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to issue a mandamus directing respondent No. 4’s removal from service

The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed, although the 55-day delay in filing the appeal had been condoned