Petitioners from Archaeology Department Lose FR Case After Failing to Challenge Recruitment Policy in Time
“Equity Favors the Vigilant, Not the Indolent”- SC
Petitioners slept on their rights for three years
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Fundamental Rights petition filed by 86 employees of the Department of Archaeology, citing an undue delay in challenging a new Scheme of Recruitment (SoR) that had been implemented in 2013. The Petitioners, who only brought the case in 2016 after they were disqualified from applying for promotions, were deemed to have “slept on their rights” as they failed to challenge the SoR in a timely manner.
The Court emphasized the legal maxim, “Equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent,” underscoring that the delay in filing the petition had undermined their claim. The Petitioners, who had been employed in various capacities at the Department, claimed that a new Scheme of Recruitment (SoR), introduced in January 2013, disqualified them from applying for promotions to Assistant Director positions. They argued that the new SoR included criteria that excluded them from applying, despite their years of experience. However, they only filed their petition in July 2016, after the new SoR affected their eligibility for a promotion when positions were advertised in June 2016.
The Respondents, including the Public Service Commission (PSC), contended that the Petitioners should have challenged the SoR when it was introduced in 2013. They argued that the SoR was properly approved in accordance with the Establishment Code and had been available on the Department’s website. The Petitioners’ claim that they were unaware of the SoR for three years was seen as unjustifiable.
The Court found that the alleged violation of the Petitioners’ rights occurred when the SoR was implemented in 2013, not when the positions were advertised.
“……..The maxim; “Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent” which means that delay defeats equity. Equity requires those who wish to seek its redress to move quickly in acting upon the same. Lord Camden, in Smith v Clay [1767] 29 ER 743 held that “Equity has always refused its aids to stale demands where a party has slept his rights for a great length of time. Nothing can call forth this court into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence where these are wanting the court is passive and does nothing.” The Petitioners slept on their rights for three years. It is reasonable to assume that they were aware of the SoR or should have taken steps to become aware of the new SoR when it was introduced. A delay of three years is unreasonable and unjust. I am of the view that at least one of the 86 Petitioners named in this application was aware of the new SoR….” – Justice K. Kumudini Wickemasinghe
CASE NO: SC (FR) Application No 248/2016 [Decided on 17/07/2024]
BEFORE: S. THURAIRAJA, PC J. K.KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE, J. ARJUNA OBEYESEKERE, J.
