HC junks doctor's plea for gold medal, cites 9-year delay, conflicting claims
High Court Order
Srinagar: Denying relief to a doctor, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed his appeal seeking direction to the University of Kashmir to provide him a Gold Medal for academic excellence during the Doctor of Medicine postgraduate course.
Noting that the cause of action allegedly arose in 2014 and the plea was filed only in 2023, the HC bench held that the plea was barred by delay and latches; hence, it dismissed the same. Further, the Court, also took note of the fact that the appellant had taken vacillating and inconsistent stands at three separate stages of the litigation.
"This shifting nomenclature demonstrates that the appellant is unsure of his own case, having lost sight of the true facts owing to the passage of time. The cause of action allegedly arose in the year 2014, yet the Writ petition was filed only after a lapse of nine years, in 2023. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, correctly concluded that the petition was barred by doctrine of “delay and laches”. It was incumbent upon the appellant to pursue his remedy within a reasonable timeframe. He cannot cite administrative inertia to gloss over an inordinate delay of nine years in approaching the court, especially given that his own vacillating stance reveals an uncertainty about the facts of his case, and the respondent has fundamentally disputed his entitlement to the relief," the Division bench of the HC comprising Justices Sanjay Parihar and Rajnesh Oswal observed.
The doctor approached the High Court and appealed against the Single Judge's order, which dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the University to award him a Gold Medal in view of his merit position. The Single Judge had dismissed the plea on the ground of delay and latches.
In his plea, the appellant claimed that Chapter XI of the Kashmir University Statutes deals with Medals and Prizes, providing that Gold Medals shall be conferred annually at the time of Convocation upon candidates securing the first position in order of merit.
The appellant argued that he was cited to attend the Convocation in the year 2014 for the presentation of the said medal and certificate of merit, which ceremony was presided over by the then Governor of the erstwhile State of J&K, in his capacity as Chancellor of the University.
He claimed that even though he received Gold Medal and certificate of merit, he was subsequently constrained to return the medal on the ground of an asserted shortage of medals for meritorious students, subject to the assurance by the respondent that the same would be restored to him as soon as fresh medals were received.
The appellant further claimed that his repeated representations to the University authorities for the return of his Gold Medal yielded no result, forcing him to seek redress through the writ petition.
On the other hand, the University opposed the appellant's claim, arguing that under the relevant University Statutes, no Gold Medal is provided at the postgraduate level in the appellant's discipline, as the Convocation serves exclusively for the conferment of degree certificates upon Ph.D., M.Phil., and MD/MS students. In this regard, Statute X of the University disentitles first-position holders in the MD course from receiving a Gold Medal.
The University also raised a preliminary objection as to delay and laches, contending that the petition was belatedly filed in the year 2023 regarding a cause of action that allegedly arose in the year 2014. Finally, the University categorically denied that any Gold Medal was ever handed to the appellant.
Consequently, the appellant challenged the order, arguing that the single judge bench erred in attributing delay, whereas the same arose entirely from the administrative inertia of the respondent-University in not holding a Convocation from 2014 until 2023.
The appellant further submitted that the notification dated 23rd October, 2023, explicitly mandates the presentation of Gold Medals to all qualifying MD/MS candidates. Consequently, the University's reliance on superseded Statutes to defeat the doctor's claim is wholly unsustainable, a vital aspect which the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration.
Court's Observations:
The HC Division bench observed that the appellant had taken inconsistent stands across three stages of litigation. In the writ petition, he claimed that he was awarded both a certificate and a Gold Medal at the 2014 Convocation. However, this claim was later retrieved.
In the memo of appeal, he set up an entirely new case and claimed that the first Convocation took place in 2013, and he was awarded a certificate of merit dated 13.11.2013 along with a Gold Medal, and that both were returned.
Again, in the rejoinder affidavit, the Court took a divergent stand again and stated that during the first convocation, he was provided the certificate of merit dated 13.11.2013 along with the Gold Medal, and that post-convocation, he was asked to return the certificate.
"A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant has taken vacillating and inconsistent stands at three separate stages of the litigation. This shifting nomenclature demonstrates that the appellant is unsure of his own case, having lost sight of the true facts owing to the passage of time," the HC bench observed at this outset.
Further, the bench observed that the cause of action arose in 2014, even though the writ petition was filed after a lapse of nine years, in 2023. "Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, correctly concluded that the petition was barred by doctrine of “delay and laches”," held the bench.
The Apex Court bench relied on the Supreme Court order in the case of HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini and others, 2024 INSC 728, where the top court bench denied the relief to the litigant on the ground of delay and laches, when the litigant varied his stand time and again.
Accordingly, the HC bench dismissed the appeal, noting, "We are of the considered view that the appellant has set up conflicting narratives at different stages, having taken vacillating stands before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court. Given that the appellant is unsure of his own case, his plea lacks the merit required to warrant judicial intervention. The learned writ court, therefore, correctly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of gross delay and laches. Therefore, this appeal is found to be misconceived and is dismissed."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/10/ibrar-basir-vs-university-of-kashmir-353110.pdf
