Delay and Laches Bar Parity Claims for Non-Vigilant Litigants Seeking Retroactive Appointment Options

The applicant qualified for the post of Assistant in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) through the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) 2011 and joined on November 02, 2012.

She was later promoted to Section Officer in 2017.

In 2012, she requested a change of preference to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) after certain posts were merged post-result, but the respondents rejected her request on June 20, 2012.

Over a decade later, the applicant filed this Original Application seeking parity with a junior candidate, Rajesh Kumar, who had secured a similar change of preference via a 2014 Tribunal order in OA No. 2243/2012.

Her fresh representation was rejected on January 03, 2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity with a junior candidate despite a delay of over ten years in approaching the Tribunal.

2. Whether the relief granted in a previous judicial order (Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India) can be extended to the applicant as a matter of right.

The Tribunal applied the doctrine of "delay and laches," which precludes the revival of stale or time-barred claims.

It emphasized the principle that parity and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 are not absolute and must be balanced against the timely assertion of rights.

The Tribunal relied on the principle of judgment in personam, noting that benefits granted to a "vigilant" litigant do not automatically extend to those who "sleep over their rights," citing M/s Rup Diamonds ors v. Union of India and Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant accepted her initial appointment in 2012 and failed to pursue legal remedies when her first request for change of preference was rejected that same year.

While the applicant cited Ganga Singh v. Commissioner of Police to argue for parity, the Tribunal distinguished her case on the grounds of inordinate delay.

It observed that the 2014 order in Rajesh Kumar specifically stated the relief was restricted to that applicant because he was "vigilant about his right."

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that granting relief after 13 years would be practically impossible as no vacancies remain in the 2011 cadre and would unfairly unsettle settled seniority positions.

The court concluded that the relief granted to the junior candidate was in personam and cannot be claimed by those who failed to act promptly.

No relief or costs were granted.