Note: Doctrine of Laches: This legal principle bars claims brought after an unreasonable delay in pursuing them, implying that the Plaintiff has been negligent in asserting their rights.

Doctrine of Acquiescence: The doctrine of acquiescence establishes that when a party with a legal right observes another party infringing upon that right and does not object, it implies consent. Therefore, the party which decides to avoid taking any action is precluded from challenging the infringing actions at a later stage.

Doctrine of Delay: This principle states that a claim may be denied if there is an undue delay in asserting it, which can harm the opposing party's ability to defend themselves due to the passage of time.

Facts:

• The Appellants were the Union of India and the Central Power Research Institute (CPRI). The Central Power Research Institute (CPRI), was an autonomous body under the Karnataka Societies Act,1960 conducts power research, tests electrical equipment, and was represented by the Ministry of Power, Government of India.
• The Respondent N. Murugesan. was a former Director-General of CPRI, who served on a tenure appointment basis.
• The Respondent initially joined CPRI in 1984 and voluntarily retired in 2008. In 2010, he was appointed as Director-General for five years, extendable up to 2019, subject to performance evaluations and approval by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
• The dispute arose when the Respondent sought to continue beyond his tenure based on his interpretation of the appointment terms, challenging subsequent decisions by CPRI to opt for fresh recruitment instead.
• The suit was initially filed in the High Court of Karnataka, where a Single Judge dismissed it.
• Subsequently, appeals were made to the Division Bench, which granted the compensation but did not order reinstatement.
• Against the order of the Division Bench, appeals were filed before the present court.
  

Background/ Procedural Posture:

• The Respondent filed two writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka. However, they were dismissed by the Learned Single Judge. (Paragraphs 14 & 15)
• The petitions were dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, with a determination that the case did not warrant the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Paragraph 15)
• Following the dismissal of the writ petitions by the Learned Single Judge, the Respondent appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka.
• The Division Bench upheld the Respondent's appeals, overturning the Single Judge's decision, but refrained from granting reinstatement or other reliefs. (Paragraph 16)
• The present appeals have been instituted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in response to the decision rendered by the Division Bench.
  

Main Issue:

Does the delay by the Respondent in challenging the terms of his tenure-based appointment, along with subsequent actions indicating acquiescence, bar him from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?