Writ Petition Seeking Removal of Employee Appointed Under Rehabilitation Policy Dismissed for Delay, Laches, and Lack of Standing.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the removal of Respondent No. 4 from the post of Assistant Grade–III.

Land (Khasra No. 434/4) was acquired by the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (CSPGCL).

The land was originally registered to Makhanlal Patel, who bequeathed it via a will dated 21/04/1997 to his son, Gaurilal Patel.

Gaurilal Patel nominated his son (Respondent No. 4) for employment under the state’s rehabilitation policy.

Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 31/07/2012 and joined service on 07/08/2012.

The petitioner challenged this appointment by filing a writ petition on 31/03/2019, approximately seven years after the appointment.

1. Whether the writ petition is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches.

2. Whether the petitioner has a subsisting legal right to seek a mandamus for the removal of Respondent No. 4 based on the land acquisition and rehabilitation policy.

The Court applied the equitable doctrine of delay and laches, which precludes judicial relief when a party fails to assert their rights within a reasonable timeframe.

The court adhered to the principles of Administrative Law regarding the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, which requires the petitioner to establish a clear, subsisting legal right to the performance of a public duty.

The specific administrative framework relied upon was the Rehabilitation Policy of the State/CSPGCL, which permits landholders whose property is acquired for public projects to nominate a family member for employment.

The Court observed that Respondent No. 4’s appointment was rooted in a valid succession and nomination process: the original owner (Makhanlal) bequeathed the land to Gaurilal, who then nominated Respondent No. 4 in accordance with the rehabilitation policy.

The Collector, Korba, had already verified this entitlement in an order dated 09/09/2011.

Crucially, the Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal standing or "subsisting legal right" to challenge this specific nomination or seek the removal of the appointee.

Additionally, the court highlighted the 7-year gap between the appointment (2012) and the filing of the petition (2019), concluding that such an inordinate and unexplained delay rendered the petition unsustainable.

The Court answered the issues by ruling that the petition suffered from fatal delay and laches and that the petitioner possessed no legal right to demand the removal of Respondent No. 4, especially since the Collector had correctly identified Respondent No. 4 as the legitimate nominee of the landholder.

No relief was granted.