Supreme Court emphasizes timely writ petitions, cautions against financial burden on State

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order, allowing the appeal and emphasizing the significance of timely filing writ petitions. It clarified that judgments based on concessions are not binding precedents. The Court expressed concern over the financial burden on the State and highlighted the need for judicial restraint in imposing such burdens. The panel from 1980 was deemed inappropriate, disregarding other candidates' aspirations. The Court concluded that the reliance on previous judgments was misplaced, leading to the appeal's success without any cost orders.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the writ petition.
2. Validity of treating previous judgments as precedents.
3. Financial implications of the court's orders on the State.

Summary:

1. Delay in filing the writ petition:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in filing the writ petition by the respondents. The panel for appointment of primary teachers was prepared in 1980, and the respondents approached the court in 1989 after the decision in Dibakar Pal's case. The Court emphasized that "delay is very significant in matters of granting relief and Courts cannot come to the rescue of the persons who are not vigilant of their rights." The Court cited the case of Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh and Anr. [JT 2006 (10) 500], stating that "those who sit on the fence and wait for a favourable order and thereafter wake up to take up the matter, are not entitled to any relief." Consequently, the view taken by the High Court condoning the delay of nine years was not upheld.

2. Validity of treating previous judgments as precedents:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the reliance on previous judgments, particularly the cases of Sirazul Haque Mallick and Dibakar Pal. The Court noted that the judgment in Sirazul Haque Mallick's case was based on concession and explicitly mentioned that it "shall not be treated as a precedent." Despite this, subsequent cases, including Dibakar Pal's and the present case, treated it as a binding precedent. The Court clarified that "any order passed on concession does not lay down the law and it cannot be followed as a precedent." The Court cited Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut [(1997) 1 SCC 203] and Arnit Das v. State of Bihar [(2000) 5 SCC 488], reinforcing that a decision not consciously determining a point of law does not form part of ratio decidendi and is not binding. Therefore, the judgments in Sirazul Haque Mallick and Dibakar Pal could not be upheld as binding precedents.

3. Financial implications of the court's orders on the State:
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the financial burden imposed on the State by the orders of the lower courts. The Court observed that "the Court should keep restrain before passing order saddling State Government with financial burden." The panel of 1980 was kept alive up to 2004, which was deemed inappropriate as it disregarded the aspirations of many more candidates waiting in queue. The Court emphasized that such actions could not be countenanced.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench dated 11.6.2004, allowing the appeal filed by the appellants. The Court concluded that the reliance on the judgments of Sirazul Haque Mallick and Dibakar Pal was misplaced, as the former was based on concession and explicitly stated not to be treated as a precedent. There were no orders as to costs.

---