Stale claims do not revive fresh causes of action despite subsequent court-directed representation or rejection.

The appellant was appointed as an ad-hoc Assistant Teacher in 1980-81 but was later removed. Following directions from the State Administrative Tribunal to screen ad-hoc teachers, the appellant appeared before a committee but was not appointed as an Assistant Teacher. Instead, in July 1999, he was appointed to the lower post of Shiksha Karmi Varg-III

After a twelve-year gap, the appellant filed W.P. No. 7123/2011, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his representation. The respondents rejected the representation on 17.10.2012

The appellant challenged this rejection in W.P. No. 3044/2014, which the learned Single Judge dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. The present writ appeal challenges that dismissal

1. Whether a fresh cause of action arises when an authority decides a representation pursuant to a court direction in a stale or time-barred matter

2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches given the 12-year gap between the initial grievance (1999) and the first legal challenge (2011)

The court applied the principle that a "dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix" simply because a court directed the consideration of a representation [State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179]

It relied on the doctrine that replies to belated representations regarding stale issues do not furnish a fresh cause of action [C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115]

Limitation is counted from the original cause of action, not the date of a court-mandated representation order [Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59]

Article 226 is a discretionary remedy that does not assist the "tardy and the indolent" [Karnataka Power Corpon. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322]

The court reasoned that the appellant’s primary grievance arose in 1999 when he was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Varg-III instead of Assistant Teacher

By waiting until 2011 to file his first petition, the appellant allowed 12 years to pass without sufficient explanation

The Court observed that the 2011 High Court order directing the State to decide his representation was a procedural tool and did not validate the delay or revive a "dead" claim

Applying the cited precedents, the Court held that successive representations are "extra-legal" attempts that do not arrest the period of limitation or provide a new starting point for litigation

Consequently, the court found that the "balance of justice" favored the respondents due to the potential public inconvenience and the creation of third-party rights over the decade-long interval

It held that the appellant failed to explain the 12-year delay in approaching the court in the first instance

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge's order that the claim was barred by delay and laches. The court also condoned a 230-day delay in filing the writ appeal itself before dismissing the merits