A Punjab and Haryana High Court case took 16 years to reach the hearing stage despite an order that it be listed within one year. The case was admitted in 2000. It was finally listed in 2016 and eventually came up for hearing before the court on July 2 this year. The High Court has now ordered called for a streamlined mechanism after directing an examination of whether a “systemic or procedural deficiency” was responsible.Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted that the record did not disclose any reason for the non-compliance and directed the Registrar-General to take appropriate steps to evolve, strengthen or streamline an effective institutional mechanism to ensure that such judicial directions were implemented “in their true letter and spirit”.The court was dealing with two writ petitions filed in 1997 against the State of Punjab and other respondents challenging the selection/appointment to the posts of sweeper and chowkidar. The petitions were admitted for regular hearing by a Division Bench on July 13, 2000, with a direction that they be listed within a year. The direction, however, could not be implemented and the matter remained pending for an inordinately long period.When the matter was eventually listed on April 25, 2016, a Coordinate Bench dismissed it as infructuous, noticing the lapse of time and absence of representation on the petitioners’ behalf. The order was subsequently recalled on August 1, 2016, and the writ petition was restored to its original number.“The matter came up for hearing before this court on July 2 and the same was taken up for consideration and decided expeditiously,” Justice Moudgil observed, while holding that the delay in disposal “cannot be attributed to the petitioners” and that the matter therefore deserved examination on its merits.Justice Moudgil said it was a matter of “grave concern” that disputes relating to public employment, particularly selections and appointments, required “expeditious adjudication with utmost promptitude” rather than being relegated to “prolonged institutional dormancy”.“Equally astonishing is the fact that even after specific order of listing the writ petition for hearing within one year vide order dated July 13, 2000, the matter came to be listed by the Registry only on April 25, 2016, after an inordinate lapse of time of around 16 years,” the Bench noted, adding that the ecord placed before the Court did not disclose any reason for such non-compliance.Justice Moudgil added judicial orders fixing timelines for listing or disposal were “not empty formalities” and that their sanctity lay in their faithful implementation. Failure to ensure compliance, it said, not only defeated the object underlying such directions but also had the potential of eroding litigants’ confidence in the justice delivery system by rendering timely adjudication “illusory”.Justice Moudgil asserted such instances warranted serious administrative attention to obviate their recurrence. Accordingly, the Registrar-General was directed to examine “whether any systemic or procedural deficiency exists in the mechanism for monitoring and ensuring compliance with judicial directions prescribing priority or time-bound listing of cases”.“The Registrar-General shall also take appropriate steps to evolve, strengthen or streamline an effective institutional mechanism for monitoring compliance with such judicial directions so that they are implemented in their true letter and spirit. If, during such examination, any lapse or deficiency in the existing system is noticed, appropriate remedial measures shall be taken on the administrative side in accordance with law,” Justice Moudgil asserted.Referring to the facts of the case, the Bench asserted it was “most unfortunate” that after an “extraordinary and unexplained lapse of nearly three decades”, the judicial process had been invoked to reopen and unsettle appointments that had long since attained a substantial degree of finality. Even assuming that the petitioners might have otherwise been eligible for consideration at the relevant time, the passage of almost three decades had materially changed the equities and circumstances.Justice Moudgil added the respondent-employees had continued in service for nearly 30 years, discharged their duties, acquired experience and structured their professional and personal lives on the legitimate expectation that their appointments would not be reopened after such an inordinate delay. Reopening the appointments would “not merely unsettle the settled position” but would also visit them with consequences for which they could not reasonably be held responsible.Justice Moudgil added it could not “burden the State exchequer twice” if the petitioners were put into service with consequential benefits. Emphasising the importance of finality in litigation, the Court held that a challenge brought after nearly three decades against appointments pursuant to which the respondents had served for the entire intervening period could not be considered in isolation from the “enormous prejudice and disruption” that would inevitably result from reopening the matter. The extraordinary delay coupled with long and uninterrupted service therefore constituted a circumstance of “considerable legal significance” while examining the maintainability and relief sought. The writ petitions were accordingly “rendered infructuous”.