Patna High Court
Ram Sewak ThakurversusChancellor of the Universities of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as barred by delay and laches.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Sewak Thakur, sought modification of two university notifications that regularized his service as a Routine Clerk, requesting that his regularization be changed to the post of Assistant with retrospective effect from 01‑01‑1992. He alleged that he had applied and been interviewed for the Assistant post and that other employees in similar positions were later promoted, while he retired without promotion. The university contended that the regularization was correctly effected on the vacant Routine Clerk post and that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay of about eighteen years. The court examined the doctrine of delay and laches, citing recent Supreme Court decisions, and held that the petitioner’s claim was stale and barred. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the petition for modification of the regularization notification is barred by delay and laches.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularized as Assistant with retrospective effect.
- Whether a university can alter a decades‑old regularization order.
Subjects
- regularization
- delay
- laches
- university employment
- civil writ jurisdiction
- promotion
- reservation
- equitable relief
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2999 of 2022
======================================================
Ram Sewak Thakur Son of Late Nand Lal Thakur Resident of Mohalla-
Saudagar, Post- Lalbagh, Town Police Station- Darbhanga, District-
Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar Raj Bhawan, Patna.
2. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar.
3. Director, Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, through its Registrar, Kameshwarnagar,
Darbhanga.
5. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnagar,
Darbhanga.
6. The Pro Vice Chancellor-cum-Chairman of the Grievance Redressal Cell,
Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga.
7. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnagar,
Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyanand Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madan Jeet Kumar (Gp 20)
For the LNMU : Mrs. Binita Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
Date : 01-04-2026
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for
modification in the notification issued under memo no. 890-
1189/04 dated 06.06.2004 and memo no. 18868-19154/09
dated 26.12.2009 issued by L.N. Mithila University by which
the petitioner’s services has been regularized and his
regularization has been shifted from 06.06.2004 to 01.01.1992
Patna High Court CWJC No.2999 of 2022 dt.01-04-2026
2/9
on the post of Routine Clerk. The petitioner has further prayed
for a direction to the respondents to issue notification for his
regularization on the post of Assistant and to fix the scale of the
Assistant with effect from 01.01.1992.
2. The brief facts, as placed by the petitioner in his writ
application, is that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages
in the university on 01.01.1992. He was retrenched from daily
wage engagement vide memo no. 4879/4961 dated 27.04.1994
and was again engaged to work vide memo no. 10028/145
dated 24.09.1994 wherein the name of the petitioner has been
mentioned at serial no. 64 on the post of Assistant.
3. An advertisement was published in the newspaper by
the Registrar of the University for inviting application for
appointment on different posts including the post of Assistant,
Routine Clerk, Store Keeper and Laboratory In-charge. The
petitioner applied on the post of Assistant, whereby he was
issued interview letter bearing no. 9443 dated 19.07.1997.
After interview, a panel of selected candidates was prepared in
which the petitioner was shown as working against the post of
Assistant.
4. On 06.06.2004, vide memo no. 890-1189/04, the
service of the petitioner was regularized on the post of Routine
Patna High Court CWJC No.2999 of 2022 dt.01-04-2026
3/9
Clerk and by way of subsequent notification of the university
dated 26.12.2009, the date of regularization of the petitioner
was shifted back to 01.01.1992 as Routine Clerk. The
petitioner has filed several representations in this regard before
the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor regarding the change of post
from Routine Clerk to Assistant but no action was taken on the
representations filed by the petitioner, hence, the writ
application.
5. Mr. Gyanand Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that service of the petitioner has been regularized on
the post of Routine Clerk instead of on the post of Assistant on
which he had applied for his regularization. The interview of
the petitioner was also conducted for the post of Assistant.
Even after the petitioner was eligible for the post of Assistant,
his services were wrongly regularized on the post of Routine
Clerk and the date of regularization has been shifted to initial
date of engagement of the petitioner i.e. 01.01.1992 as Routine
Clerk.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the university has
changed the cadre of one Naveena Kumari, whose services
were earlier regularized to the post of Typist to the post of
Assistant. He next submits that in a notification dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.2999 of 2022 dt.01-04-2026
4/9
24.07.2024, by order of the Vice-Chancellor, Naveena Kumari
has further been promoted to the post of Section Officer. The
petitioner has retired from his service on 28.02.2023 without
getting a promotion, whereas several persons who were
engaged on the post of Routine Clerk have been absorbed on
the post of Assistant and were promoted to the post of Section
Officer. The petitioner has been agitating his grievance by
filing representations and making prayer for modification of
the notifications to the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor, but of no
avail.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that it is
obvious by notifications dated 06.06.2004 and 26.12.2009 that
the petitioner was regularized on the vacant post of Routine
Clerk which cannot be modified after a long gap of almost two
decades. Naveena Kumari was promoted to the post of
Assistant who was earlier been absorbed as Typist on the basis
of reservation roster as she falls under the Scheduled Caste
category and such benefit was given by the university after
verification. She was not promoted to the post of Section
Officer, rather she was given charge of the higher post after the
direction of the State Government in the notification dated
24.07,2024.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2999 of 2022 dt.01-04-2026
5/9
8. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has
retired on 28.02.2023 and the process of temporary promotion
was done in the year 2024. All the promotions were on
temporary basis.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the materials available on record.
10. Delay and laches is a recognized doctrine. “Laches” is
derived from french language and means remissness and
slackness. The Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India
and Others v. N. Murugesan and Others, reported in (2022)
2 SCC 25, has held that laches involves unreasonable delay or
negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief
while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the
part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a
right and therefore must stand in the way of the party getting
relief or remedy. In paragraph 21 and 22 of the judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
“21. The word "laches" is derived from the
French language meaning "remissness and
slackness". It thus involves unreasonable delay
or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an
equitable relief while causing prejudice to the
other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to
do an act which law requires while asserting a
Patna High Court CWJC No.2999 of 2022 dt.01-04-2026
6/9
right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the
party getting relief or remedy.
22. Two essential factors to be seen are the
length of the delay and the nature of acts done
during the interval. As stated, it would also
involve acquiescence on the part of the party
approaching the court apart from the change in
position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would
be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a
remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his
acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By
his conduct, he has put the other party in a
particular position, and therefore, it would be
unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the
court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct
on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a
remedy."
11. Yet in another judgment of Chairman, State Bank of
India and Another v. M.J. James, reported in (2022) 2 SCC
301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
“36. What is a reasonable time is not to be put in
a straitjacket formula or judicially codified in
the form of days, etc. as it depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. A right not
exercised for a long time is non-existent.
Doctrine of delay and laches as well as
acquiescence are applied to non-suit the litigants
who approach the court/appellate authorities
belatedly without any justifiable explanation for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2999 of 2022 dt.01-04-2026
7/9
bringing action after unreasonable delay. In the
present case, challenge to the order of dismissal
from service by way of appeal was after four
years and five months, which is certainly highly
belated and beyond justifiable time. Without
satisfactory explanation justifying the delay, it is
difficult to hold that the appeal was preferred
within a reasonable time. Pertinently, the
challenge was primarily on the ground that the
respondent was not allowed to be represented by
a representative of his choice. The respondent
knew that even if he were to succeed on this
ground, as has happened in the writ proceedings,
fresh inquiry would not be prohibited as finality
is not attached unless there is a legal or
statutory bar, an aspect which has been also
noticed in the impugned judgment. This is
highlighted to show the prejudice caused to the
appellants by the delayed challenge. We would,
subsequently, examine the question of
acquiescence and its judicial effect in the context
of the present case."
12. The Apex Court in Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of
U.P. and Others, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 536, has held that
mere filing representation does not extend the period of
limitation and if it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of
delay and laches, the High Court should dismiss it at the
threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by
Patna High Court CWJC No.2999 of 2022 dt.01-04-2026
8/9
relegating the writ petitioner to file representation and /or
directing the authority to decide the representation.
13. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the
notification dated 06.06.2004 and 26.12.2009 seeking its
modification after inordinate delay. Though the case of the
petitioner is that he kept on filing representations on several
occasion, but the petitioner has approached this Court after a
long gap of nearly about 18 years raising claim of
regularization on the post of Assistant. The petitioner retired on
28.02.2023 and woke up from deep slumber and filed this writ
application after nearly two decades on a dead cause of action
which can be termed as stale claim. Following the law laid
down by the Supreme Court that the writ court should be
conscious and alive to the primary principle that when an
aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the
court at his own leisure and pleasure, the court is under a legal
obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should
be entertained or not.
14. This court is of the view that this is a textbook case of
delay and laches where the petitioner has chosen to wake up
from the slumber after nearly two decades. Applying the law
laid down by the Supreme Court to the facts of the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.2999 of 2022 dt.01-04-2026
9/9
case, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The writ
petition is clearly barred by delay and laches.
15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any also
stands dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
HarshPandey/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 13.01.2026
Uploading Date 01.04.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…