Long delay in filing plea against recruitment process ground for rejection even if grievance genuine: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that in a recruitment process, a candidate cannot be permitted to seek redressal of grievance beyond a certain period of time howsoever genuine the issue may be, as there has to be a closure to the process [Sankar Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Others]..A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said that a long delay in filing the original application (OA) towards redressal with respect to a recruitment process is itself a ground to non-suit the appellant. "In case of an advertisement dated 1999, the appellant cannot be permitted to plead that he was waiting for seven long years for getting an appointment letter and then woke up to file the OA before the State Administrative Tribunal," the Bench observed and proceeded to dismiss the case. Refusing to comment on an adverse police verification report which the petitioner sought to dismiss, the Bench added that "in a recruitment process, a candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal, howsoever may be the genuineness of the grievance, at any stage of time as there has to be a closure to the process of recruitment."The top court was adjudicating an appeal assailing an order of the Calcutta High Court that had upheld the order of the State Adminisratative Tribunal dismissing the original application (OA) filed by the appellant, where he had sought a direction for foregoing the police verification report..In 1999, an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer (Civil), where the appellant had appeared and cleared the medical fitness test but his appointment could not take place as the police verification report was not received.It was the appellants' case that he waited for about 7 years for getting the appointment letter and only thereafter had filed an OA before the State Administrative Tribunal. On September 1, 2006, the Public Works Department cited only one aspect against the appellant's case i.e. non-receipt of police verification report.In his second OA, the appellant had sought a direction for foregoing the police verification report as he had suffered for about eight years. The same was rejected by the tribunal on the ground that the appellant had not made the representation to know the fate of the police verification report.Aggrieved, the appellant had moved the Calcutta High Court, which by an order dated December 22, 2008, dismissed the case of the appellant on the ground that the appellant is a Bangladeshi national..Without commenting on the factual correctness of the police verification report which was sought to be disputed by the appellant, the top court at the outset noted the time span of 24 years from the date of the advertisement in 1999 till 2022, which in itself would an impediment in any relief to the appellant.The Supreme Court highlighted that the appellant waited for seven long years to file the OA before the State Administrative Tribunal.It, therefore, dismissed the appeal..Advocate-on-Record Ranjan Mukherjee appeared on behalf of appellant.Advocate-on-Record Chanchal Kumar Ganguli and advocates Suhaan Mukerji, Nikhil Parikshith, Vishal Prasad, Abhishek Manchanda and Sayandeep Pahari appeared on behalf of respondents..[Read Order]