Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3rd October, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5308 of 2009 preferred by these appellants (original petitioner), whereby the said petition was dismissed. Submissions made on behalf of the appellants
(2.) Annexure B to the counter affidavit of the University in the writ petition, which was heavily relied upon by the Single Judge, is not applicable to the appellants: Counsel for the appellants (original petitioners) submitted that they were appointed as Class IV employees during the period between 1973 to 1976. Individual dates of appointment has also been given in the writ petition. Later on, they were promoted to Class III post by the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University. Thereafter, they were again reverted as Class IV employees in the year 1995 and therefore, writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 5308 of 2009 was preferred by these appellants (original petitioners) to restore their positions as Class III employees. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that Annexure B to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University in the writ petition has been heavily relied upon by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, but the same was not applicable to the present appellants. Moreover, it is submitted that on perusal of Annexure 1 to the Letters Patent Appeal, it becomes clear that promotion was given to the appellants by the Vice - Chancellor of the University. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) Principles of delay and laches is not applicable in the facts of the present case : Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S.R.T. Corpn. v/s. B.R.M. Service reported in : AIR 1969 SC 329, para 11 and has submitted that the principles of delay and latches is not applicable to the facts of the present case. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence judgment and order dated 3rd October, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5308 of 2009 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Submissions made on behalf of the University;