Party in Person
Written by Alok // September 2, 2010 // Law & The Judiciary // 12 Comments
[Based on an incident I was actually witness to in the Supreme Court. Obviously some minor details have been changed here and there... mainly to protect myself!]
The Chief Justice’s Court in the Supreme Court of India is a vast courtroom; a grand place with high ceilings, expensive woodwork, vast columns of reports and paintings of the great Chief Justices of India gazing down upon you. Awe inspiring is the word.
Courtroom No.15 is nothing like that. It’s shaped like a giant slice of cake with the judges sitting at the narrower half and the lawyers, their juniors and interns, litigants, and court officers packed into the other half. As the Judge’s interns we sat almost exactly halfway between the slice, but we occupied the “best seats in the House”.
It was miscellaneous day, and I could see all the players clearly, and had no stake in anything that was going on. It was only natural that my attention was taken up by the one guy who seemed most out of place there. More so because he was clearly one of the litigants but was sitting, somewhat uneasily, in the section reserved for advocates.
He carried with him a large bundle of paper held together in a cardboard file, like any other litigant, and a couple of law books. It was then that I figured that he was one of those people who had come to argue their own cases before the Supreme Court. Such persons were rare enough, but one who seemed to be just in his late twenties, still rarer. A short, wiry man, with an anxious look, he barely filled out the ample chairs in the advocates’ section as he waited for his case to be called up.
When the number of his case was called up, he walked up to the front, and placed his file on the table, resting both his hands on it. I got a better look at him, and he looked even smaller than he seemed. With nervous hands, he opened his file and picked up one of the books he was carrying, gathered himself up, and began in a faltering tone that gained confidence as he spoke. He spoke in halting but grammatically correct English.
His claim was fairly straightforward. He had been dismissed from employment with the Delhi office of a major International Organization, and challenged the dismissal before Labour Court. The Labour Court had dismissed his claim on the ground that it could not entertain cases filed by employees of such International Organizations. He had now come before the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition challenging the Labour Court’s order. He had done his research thoroughly, though. He cited cases where the Supreme Court itself had held contrary to the Labour Court’s finding, and was in the midst of mentioning yet another when the Senior Judge interrupted him.
“…. but your case is barred by limitation.”
A wave of incomprehension washed over the litigant.
“It has been over a year after the time for filing the appeal has expired. What is your explanation for that, and where is the petition for condonation of delay?”
Confusion. Perhaps they had misunderstood what he was saying. He tried to cite the next case in a faltering voice.
“No, no, we don’t want to hear the precedents. Tell us why you have filed this appeal with such delay?”
He had been running around try to get a lawyer, he said, more and more unsure of where this was going. He had been researching to argue his case before the Supreme Court.
“Why don’t you get a lawyer to argue your case?”
He didn’t have the money, not after he lost his job and spent it all in fighting the case in the Labour Court.
“Look here, your petition is already a year late. We will have to dismiss it as barred by limitation if you proceed. However, we will give you an option to withdraw the petition, and approach the Delhi High Court which has jurisdiction over the matter. Is that acceptable to you?”
Silence. More confusion. And growing panic.
The junior Judge on the Bench intervened, trying to help matters.
“All we are saying is, why don’t you take back this petition, and file it before the Delhi High Court? They will also be able to hear this matter, and help you out.”
But he couldn’t. He had spent all his money on filing this petition, he said, and couldn’t afford to file the case in the Delhi High Court and pursue his case. He wanted to be allowed to argue this matter.
“Now see here,” the senior Judge was running out of patience. And time. Five minutes had already been spent on this matter. On a miscellaneous day.
“I am telling you for the last time, withdraw your petition now, or I will have to dismiss it as barred by limitation, and I cannot give you any more time for this.”
“All I want is my job back.” He piped up, in a clear voice, hoping that this plea for help would be heard. A half second of silence. Followed by muffled laughter from the lawyers at the back. It died down quickly enough.
“I am sorry; there is nothing we can do to help you…” and turning to the Court Master, “Petition dismissed on grounds of delay. Call out the next case please.”
He stood there stunned as if someone had shot him. He didn’t move. The lawyer appearing in the next case nudged him away from the Bar to take his place. He walked to the back of the Courtroom slowly, clutching his file and books. No one took notice of him as he walked out of the Courtroom.
[I had posted this, in a slightly different version, some time back here]
12 Comments on "Party in Person"
In the Supreme Court of India at Delhi
Writ Petition No /2011
District- Jalgaon.
Anil S/0 Bajirao Badgujar
Age –49 years,Occ.-Nil Petitioner
R/0 Gandhipura, Mainroad, (In – person)
Erandol.Dist-Jalgoan.(Maharashtra)
Pin-425109
Email – Id
Versus
1) The State of Maharashatra
(Secretary, Gen.Admn.Dept.
Mantralaya,Mubai-32
2) The Asstt. Director,
Employment Exchange
Office, Jalgaon. RESPONDENT
3) The District Collector,
Jalgaon.
4) The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-op.Societies,Nasik Division,
Gruh Nirman Bhavan,3rd Floor
Gadkari Chouck,Juna Agra Road,
Nasik.
5) The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-op.Societies,Nasik Division,
Lekha Parikshan, Nasik Division,
Nasik Road, Nasik.
To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
& OTHER HON’BLE JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT DELHI
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
Under article 32, Constitution of India
violation of Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16. …
THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTIFULLY SHOWTH AS UNDER ABOVE.
1) Central govt. on dt 5/1/1993 has taken a decesion of absorbing retreched
excensus employee 1991
2) The present petitioner is the Retreched excensus employee 1991 and the present applicant was appointed by order of dt 18/2/1991.in the temporary post of coder/compiler from period dt 4/3/1991 to 31/12/1992.on consolidated pay or Rs 900/- per month in the office of Reginal Deputy Director of Census Operation at Jalgaon.In 1998 govt. took decesion about absorption of Retreched Census Employee 1991 of 50 % in total vacancies.
I am giving the detail information after GR of Maharashtra govt. dt 12 march
1998
1) The Collector had demanded some post for Talathi through employment Exchange Jalgaon & employment Exchange sent my name dt 24/12/1998. But as per GR dt 21/5/1994 he did not took interview for the post of talathi within one month. ( Exibit )
2) The Collector had demanded Seven post for Clerk (essentialComputercourse diploma) dt 6/6/2000 through employment Exchange Jalgaon & employment Exchange sent my only name dt 27/9/2000. But as per GR dt 21/5/1994 he did not took interview for the post of Clerk within one month.& there is no need for interview becasuse only one name was sent by employement exchange jalgaon. ( Exibit )
3) Collector Jalgaon had sent a letter dt 10/7/2000 indicating that if candidate is
nominated by employment exchange jalgaon then he will be sent interview
letter. but after being my name nominated on dt 27/9/2000 but I was not taken
interview.
4) I had submitted an application on dt 19/8/2000 indicating that I was going to be Age Bar after one month &This matter is prior to mine finishing 45 years of Age Completion.& Collector Jalgaon inform to letter dt 10/7/2000 when employment exchange send your name then take an interview. But employment exchange send my alone name only for the post of Clerk (Essential computer Course)dt 27/9/2000 but interview did not taken by collector Jalgaon. ( Exibit )
5) The Ex-census Employee went on strike in Collector Office Jalgaon in December 2000& Collector gave relaxation on the condition of Typing & Computer.Collector sent again demand letter dt 4/12/200 to the employment exchange for the post of Clerk. In response to this the employment exchange sent the list of 12 Ex census Employee candidate. My name was also enlisted in that list . I have only to do with the demand letter dt 6/6/2000 & not 4/12/2000(Both demand letter are differenet) ( Exibit )
6) All Right of Recruitment of Ex- census Employee 1991 category for appointment & Collector is the chairman of Excensus Employee 1991 recruitment selection committee.& why are to send my proposal to govt. to direction of appointment.only prolong this matter.The Collector had sen my praposal regarding appointment in 5/11/2000. But I was not given appointment.& even not taken interview. Then govt. issue 8 ( Eight) letter of my appointments to the collector but he did not take any action. ( Exibit )
7) In govt. letter dt 24/2/2005 it was notice that the proposals send to the collector were not appropriate Badgujar matter is prior the govt. & the govt. declared that my matter is very prior & govt. letter dt 26/7/2005 they also declared that Badgujar would become Age-Bar after one month.I request you to take necessary action immidiately for my appointment.
The collector had sent the report regarding the recruitment of Ex-census employee dt 12/1/2005 to the govt. but the govt. replied that the approval or report sent by collector is not applicable.
9) Government as per GR dt 12/3/1998 has exempted EX-Census Employee from written test. Still the Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies Nasik Division Nasik took written test and disqualified me.
10)As per the decesion of Supreme Court 2003 the Ex-census employee should
berecruited by publishing the Advertisement in a news paper as well as by
employment exchange& then be taken the written test. But The Collector recruited
ex census employee without conducting test the writen test.
11)Collector Jalgaon has appointed many candidates since 1998 but rejected me for
the post.
12) Just after I completed my 45 years of age, on dt 18/1/2006, the Collector Jalgaon Started recruitement process for the Ex-census employee. & appointed seven candidate dt 25/4/2006.but Collector did not take my interview & not appointed to me. 13) The employement exchange official deleted my name &put another age bar candidate named Pandurang Lahu Patil at post Dhar tal –Amalner dist jalgaon.for filling up the 19 post of clerk in Jilha parishad jalgaon. Due to this I lost the chance in govt. service. So the proper action should be taken againist concerned authorities.
14) Employement exchange has given age relaxation to Ex-census employee plus + Anshakalin padvidhar karmachari altogether but the same facility was not given in january 2006 by Employement exchange.
15) The commissioner of nasik had sent proposal of my age relaxation dt 29/12/2007 & govt. issue to letter dated 12/3/2008 to collector jalgaon for necessary action. ( Exibit )
16) If Collector had taken timely action and filled them up vacant post through interview held periodical intervals, the problem of otherwise, eligible Candidate having become over-age for the post would not arisen
17) District Collector has appointed unpaid en-listed candidate on dt17/12/1984 on the establishment of District Collector the same account I should also begiven Age relaxation & appoint me on vacant post till date for me.( Collector letter by information act dt 30/8/2010) ( Exibit )
18) I should be provided with Government Advocate by Supreme Court delhi to assert my side I have attached alongwith this application my income certificate.I am a still an unemployed person living below poverty level.
19) You can ordered all regarding my case from High court Bench at aurangabad.
I should be provided with Government Advocate by Supreme Court delhi or Supreme Court legal aid Committee at delhi to assert my side.
20) I have been striving for 14 year’s but have not got benefit of as per G.R. dt 12/3/1998 & I have not been given appointment since last 14 year’s.The previous Collector did not appoint for the post.the particular post is still vacant for me.
21) The Honorable Supreme Court, in its final order Dated 28/9/1999 in C.A. No 810/98 was pleased to pass order directing The State Government to delete the first two conditions,stating that retreched employees of Census Department should be placed in Group IV and the condition releting to the exclusion of the 3 years from their age shall be deleted.
The retreched employees of Census Organisation shall be exempted from the age limit prescribed in the service rules governing the posts in which they are to be appointed. This concession shall apply only to the Retreched Employees of 1991 Census. ( Exibit )
22) I have submitted the application as per decision of Supreme Court dt 17/5/2007 to the collector Jalgaon on dt 12/1/2011 But I have not got any response from Collector Jalgaon.
Falls Report send by Collector to Maharashta Government.
1) The collector had shown fake report about to the absorption of muster Assistant to govt. dt 26/9/2006.
2) The collector had shown fake report to appointment of shri badgujar for the post of peon to Human Right Commission Mumbai dt. 25/10/2005 ( Badgujar name is in the list of peon 28-A but serial number of 28 latter 29 & there is no number of 28-A as a sequense
3) Collector had started recruitment process dt 6/10/2005 But at that time I was not age bar ( collector letter dt 5/2/2008)
My Qualification as under
M.Com.( 59%)
Typing : Eng :-40 w.p.m.GCC Exam Pass
Marathi :-40 w.p.m.GCC Exam Pass
Computer :- I had completed CCCO six monthe diploma course of
computer in unicom computer centre Dhule
Place :- Erandol Anil Bajirao Badgujar
Date :- /03/2011 ( Petitioner)
(Party In – Person)
Grounds
Information about my Litigation of Court Matter Since 2002
1. Central govt. on dt 5/1/1993 has taken a decesion of absorbing retreched Ex-census employee 1991
Hon’ble High Court did not take & the period of litigation should not be taken in to consideration & prior decision of Tribunal Aurangabad in O.A. No 374/02 dt. 23/12/2002
2. The present petitioner is the Retreched excensus employee 1991 and the present applicant was appointed by order of dt 18/2/1991.in the temporary post of coder/compiler from period dt 4/3/1991 to 31/12/1992.on consolidated pay or Rs 900/- per month in the office of Reginal Deputy Director of Census Operation at Jalgaon.In 1998 govt. took decesion about absorption of Retreched Census Employee 1991 of 50 % in total vacancies.
3. The present applicant was filed original application No. 374/02 before the Hon’ble Tribunal at Aurangabad and thereby directed to respondents to Consider claim as per his educational qualification, including knoledge of computer whenever recruitment process,including upper Age limit.
4. The present applicant was again filed original application No. 217/03 against the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies,Nasik Division Nasik with prayer written test exmption of Retreched excensus employee 1991& post filled by only oral interview.But Hon’ble Tribunal at Aurangabad applicant prayer is not granted.
5. The present applicant was again filed original application No. 392/04 against the Collector Jalgaon with prayer about decesion of Tribunal in writ petition No. 374/02 dt 23/12/2002 ( Exibit Page No )
6) Hon’ble High Court Bench at Aurangabad had directed, Respondents No 2 to 5 shall keep one post of clerk/computer operetor class III) vacant during the ensuring recruitment process. ( Exibit Page No )
7) The present applicant was again filed original application No. 3881/05 & 3893/05 in the Hon’ble High Court Bench at Aurangabad dt 25/05/2005. & petitioner was given in the Petition when become a Age-Bar & petitioner was given affidivit dt 31/8/2005 on govt. letter dt 26/7/2005 become Age Bar after one month. On final hearing dt. 21/4/2006 Hon’ble High Court dismiss on age bar ground. In this decision In present case there is no dispute petitioner is eligible for being appointment but dispute of his Upper age. ( Exibit I Page No 10 underline mark)
9) The present applicant was again filed Review application No. 6669/& 6716/06 Hon’ble High Court hearing of both parties Judgement reserve on dt 15/11/2006 & dismiss on dt 13/12/2006.
10) The present applicant was again filed Review application No. 22156/07& 22157/07 Claming decision of Hon’ble Tribunal Mumbai Bench dt 20/8/1999. But review was widrawn by Advocate Shri B.R.Warma.
11) Then after applicant send to complian to Hon’ble High Court at Mumbai dt 10/2/2008 about decesion of High court in writ petiion No 3881/05 & 3893/05. Dt 21/4/2006 & Registrar of High court directed to Registrar Hon’ble High Court Aurangabad to take necessary action in the matter.
12) The present applicant was again filed original application No. 1082/2009 Hon’ble Tribunal at Aurangabad
13) The present applicant was again filed Writ Petition No. 5505/2010 Hon’ble High court at Aurangabad. But Legal committee Advocate Shri B.R.Survase withdraw this petition without not taking permission of petitioner.
14) The present applicant was again filed Writ Petition No. 10760/2010 Hon’ble High court at Aurangabad. By Party-Inperson. & withdraw this petition by petitioner because Hon’ble High court was directed orally to petitioner submit writ petition in the Supreme Court Delhi.
15) The petitioner states that, there is delay of some year’s in filing writ petition in Supreme Court Delhi The petitioner states that he is seeking redressal to his grievance since last 14 year’s his unemployed. He is facing financial problems He was required to look after his 94 years old father. He was required to arrange funds for medical treatment of his father.His earning brother expired due to heart attack.Applicant economic condition is very poor it is very difficult for me to raise my children My wife is always ill. She has been gone through an operation.now any how he could raise hand for incurring expenses of present petition submitted (delays) in the Supreme Court delhi the petitioner there fore please that delay of some years in preffering writ petition kindly condoned. The delay occurred is not intentional. Because still I am unemployed person & there is no income for me.This decision has been searched out on the internet recently
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE PETITIONER IS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
HENCE EARNESTLY PRAY THAT,
A) This writ petition be kindly allowed.
B) The Honorable Supreme Court, in its final order Dated 28/9/1999 in C.A. No 810/98 was pleased to pass order directing The State Government to delete the first two conditions,stating that retreched employees of Census Department should be placed in Group IV and the condition releting to the exclusion of the 3 years from their age shall be deleted.
The retreched employees of Census Organisation shall be exempted from the age limit prescribed in the service rules governing the posts in which they are to be appointed. This concession shall apply only to the Retreched Employees of 1991 Census.To direct respondent relax my age & appoint to me till date vacant post for me in Collector Jalgaon
C) District Collector has appointed unpaid en-listed candidate on dt 17/12/1984 on the establishment of District Collector the same account I should also be given Age relaxation & appoint me on vacant post till date for me. (to get Collectorletter to me in information act dt 30/8/2010)
D) It be kindly held & declared that the applicant is entitled to get benefit of the period spent in correspondence by the respondents Collector Jalgaon with the govt. and benefit extended to the other excensus employee 1991 in writ petition No 810/98 dt 11/8/1999 & 17 May 2007 decesion of Supreme Court Delhi.& O.A. No 913/93 Tribunal Mumbai be kindly extended in favour of petitioner.
E) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the respondent No 2 to 5 kindly directed to keep one post of clerk / peon vacant during the ensuring recruitment process. ( as per Hon’ble High Court Bench at Aurangabad directed dt 9/6/2005 )
F) Any other relief be kindly granted to the petitioner to which he may be found entitiled to under the law & on the end of justice.
G) To direct the respondent to award all the benefit form dt 27/9/2000( employment exchange send only my name for vacant post of Class III Essential Computer Course No of post 7) in the Collector Jalgaon. ( Collector demand letter dt 6/6/2000 to the employment exchange jalgaon. At that time applicant is not Age Bar for appointment.
OR
H) In 1998 I was nominated for the post of Talathi on 24/12/1998 & for the post of Clerk ( essentioal Computer course) on 27/9/2000 by employment exchange. If I were appointed for the above mentioned post , I would have completed 14 or 13 years govt.service for the post.The pension scheme was in effect at that time. So I would be liable for pension So I should be given the amount of my pension as well as my salary for that loss of period as compensation. I have wasted my 14 years fruitless in approching & complaining the authorities & been harassed. All these years I have to suffer mental & physical agony. Even after given the GR from govt. dt 12/3/1998 , I was not absorbed in the service. It is very difficult for me to raise my children & also my wife is always ill. She has been gone through an operation. So I need Compensation to fulfill the neees and demands (bread & butter) of family. I am still an unemployed person & my economic condition is very poor.& I have no other resources of income. Because I have been striving for 14 year’s but have not got benefit of as per G.R. dt 12/3/1998 & The particular post is still vacant for me.Government has taken decision to absorb the Ex-Census Employee dt 12/3/1998. But I have not been absorbed in govt.Service since last 14 years. I have suffered physical & mental harrassment. I should be granted compensation to fulfill my family’s needs.
I) I had to submit petitions many times in the court after June 2002. So I should be given peition expenses from Respondent Parties & also the expenses for the advocate for my petition.
J) The Age of applicant should be considered when he was applying for the post. At that time I am not Age Bar.But The Hon’ble High Court Bench at Aurangabad had not considered my age relaxation at the time of decision dt 21/4/2006 in writ petition no 3893/05 & 3881/05. In this decision In present case there is no dispute petitioner is eligible for being appointment but dispute of his Upper age. At page no 10 underline mark
k) To direct to govt. to take very hard action against guilty respondent
authorites.because I have been striving for 14 years to get
appointment in Collector office, Jalgaon.
L) The delay of Petitioner kindly Should be Condone
M) I should be provided with Government Advocate by Supreme Court delhi or Supreme Court legal aid Committee at delhi to Assert my side. I have attached alongwith this application my income certificate,& I have also attached BPL list having my name included. I am still an unemployed person living Below poverty level.&You can ordered all related papers about my case from High court Bench at aurangabad.Because Adv. Shri B.R.Warma, High Court Aurangabad has not returened my case file. He told that my case file has been lost
N) The employement exchange official deleted my name &put
another age bar candidate named pandurang lahu patil at post Dhar
tal –Amalner dist jalgaon.for filling up the 19 post of clerk in Jilha
parishad Jalgaon due to this I loss of chance in govt. service. So
the proper action should be taken againist concern authorities
AND FOR THESE ACT OF KINDNESS PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY TO YOUR LORDSHIPS
Place :- Erandol Anil Bajirao Badgujar
Date :- 06 /04/2011 ( Petitioner)
(Party In – Person
Verification
I Shri Anil Bajirao Badgujar Age : 49 years Occu. Nil R/o Gandhipura ,Mainroad Erandol. Dist -Jalgoan. Do here by State on Oath that what ever stated in this Writ Petition in Para No 1 to and ground No 1 to and Prayer Clauses A to are true and correct to best of knowldge and as per legal submission , Which I belived to be true and correct.
Hence Solemnly verified at on this day of March 2011.
Identified and Deponent
Explained by
( A.B.Badgujar)
i am vijay vaid now in job pvt.ltd.compny i recureted for gover ment job.
hgh-saizen allegra perscription drug stores flonase ,
Now all padvidahar anshkalin is near 45-46 year age. But Govt is not respose to appoint gov job. age limit is over of candidate. Then say your are age Bar.
Why should not appoint padvidhar anshkalin karmachari, They all is Graduates, and Qualify to compare Janganana Karmachari.
Sir , three SLPs are filed againt me shall i argue the case in person?
Sir , three SLPs are filed againt me; i have already submitted caveats; in-spite of caveat; without hearing me the order may be passed?
SIR,
CAN WE APPROACH HONORABLE COURTS IN PERSON ON ERRONEOUS ACT OF HONORABLE GOVERNOR OF THE THEN UNITED ANDRA PRADESH, WHERE HE FAILED TO INVITE A LEADER FROM LARGEST MAJORITY PARTY IN STATE AND INVITED TWO INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS.
DEAR SIR,
I HAVE POSTED MY COMMENT ON 19th JUNE FOR A VALUABLE ADVISE AS ABOVE. BUT NO REPLY IS BEEN RECEIVED SO FAR.
PLEASE ADVISE ME AT THE EARLIEST SIR
I’m a developer and I have just thought of a breakthrough
adult dating internet site. I am in the market for beta test candidates to
search and try it out. Are you looking to subscribe?
Let us pay you.
Hello Dear, are you in fact visitig tis web site on a regular basis, if
so then you ill definitely obtain good knowledge.
Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you really
understand what you are talking approximately!
Bookmarked. Please also discuss with my web site =). We may have
a hyperlink change contract among us
Trackbacks for this post