SHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL vs PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Doctrine of laches

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Doctrine of laches---Indolence of aggrieved party---Effect---Petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the handout, however, subsequently, the appointment notification of respondent was issued---Petitioner did not assail the said notification separately, instead did it by filing his first amendment application; said application was later withdrawn by him ; later after period of over one and a half years, submitted second amendment; finally, writ was dismissed declining reliefs sought---Held: Record revealed that the petitioner filed the writ petition on 11.07.2019, challenging the handout dated 14.06.2019---Subsequently, the appointment notification of respondent was issued on 22.08.2019.---Respondent attached the appointment notification with the written statement---Petitioner, despite being aware of said development failed to take immediate steps to challenge the said notification; instead, he remained mum for nearly three years before filing his first amendment application on 26.10.2022, however, said application was later withdrawn by him on 01.12.2022---Petitioner, once again, remained silent for an extended period of over one and a half years and finally submitting a second amendment application on 26.02.2024---Though an amendment can be allowed at any stage of proceedings, however, it is equally important to recognize that the doctrine of laches operates as a bar to claims when not pursued diligently---Laches is premised on the maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt which means that the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights---Doctrine of laches is particularly relevant in cases where undue delay may prejudice the other party---In the present case, the petitioner's silence for a cumulative period of over four years, despite the clear knowledge of respondent's appointment, raises serious concerns about the petitioner's diligence and good faith in prosecuting his claim---Allowing the application filed by the petitioner would effectively permit him to challenge the appointment notification of respondent without providing any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in raising this issue---A vested right stood accrued to respondent upon issuance of the appointment notification dated 22.08.2019, which was made in compliance with the recommendations of PSC which remained unchallenged by the petitioner; hence, the High Court has not committed any illegality while rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment---No illegality or infirmity in the High Court's impugned judgment had been noticed---Petitioner failed to point out any substantial question of law warranting the grant of leave to appeal---Petition was dismissed.

SHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL vs PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Doctrine of laches — 2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC