Decided on June 04,1999



- (1.) The petition having qualified test of diploma 'A' grade Nursing course held on June 30th, 1994 was selected for the said course for the session Sept. 1994. She was required to join the course by 15th of Oct. 1994 but she failed to report within the period stipulated. She has assailed such failure to her ailment and has produced a Medical Certificate dated 11-11-1994 forming Annexure 6 to the writ petition. This certificate depicts that the petitioner was suffering from 'bronchial Asthma' and was advised complete bed rest for the period commencing from 10-10-1994 to 10-12-1994. What is the evidentiary value of the certificate produced and how does it help the petitioner are the issues which arise but I chose to skip over in view of the nature of controversy and I presume it to be genuine one. Consequently, the petitioner is presumed to be bed ridden from 10-10-1994 to 10-12-1994.
(2.) Having accepted the petitioner's ground of confinement to the bed for period of two months a question arise as to what impact can it have on the fate of the writ petition and to appreciate the issue involved in its right perspective, it is relevant to notice that the petitioner was required to join by 15th of Oct. 1994 but failed to. No doubt the petitioner has contended in the writ petition that she had reported to the respondents after having recovered from the ailment but on which date, nothing is indicated. The petitioner is conscious of the fact that it is not a case where permission to join is denied but is case of failure to join, therefore, date on which she had reported the respondents is significant, yet she has opted for silence and dealing with the averment, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner had at no point of time reported to them . It can be safely gathered (from the conduct of the petitioner and the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner had initially chosen not to join, therefore, she did not approach the respondents but at a later stage she has entertained a second thought and without representing to the respondents she has filed this writ petition at a belated stage.
(3.) The petition was filed on 20-7-1995, whereas the petitioner was required to join by 15-10-1994, as per the averment made in writ petition. As such the delay involved is of more than nine months. Ex facie it is an inordinate delay on which count satisfactory and cogent explanation is wanting. Lapse of nine months it is much longer period in the case of an academic course. Reckoned from the date of institution of the writ petition the successive session viz 1995 had to start only after a period of less than three months, obviously major portion of the session to which admission is sought had already expired when the petitioner approached the Court. It is settled legal position that Courts can interfere in a matter even after the passage of a certain length of time provided the party approaches the Court expeditiously. In the instant case, the petitioner has chosen to be silent for nine long months which virtually tantamounts to abandonment of the claim. In view of the circumstances, of the case this is a fit case where discretion to exercise power under Art. 226 should be refused.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.