Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35486 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3036 of 2025 Petitioner :- Krishna Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Ravi Lal Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents. 2. Petitioner before this Court has not disclosed his antecedents, except an averment in para 24 of writ petition that due to action of Respondent-8 he was harassed during his service period and his post retiral benefits were cleared after three years of his retirement. He has also declared that harassment caused by Respondent-8 is a legal ground available with petitioner to challenge his appointment, who was appointed on 23.06.1988, i.e., after a period of more than 36 years. 3. Para 24 of the writ petition is reproduced hereinafter: “24. That on one hand the appointment of respondent no. 8 is dehor the provisions of law occupying the field. In spite of same, every now and then respondent no. 8 had been instrumental in disturbing the otherwise valid appointment of the petitioner as or his behest earlier in point of time petitioner was placed under suspension vide resolution dated 20.12.2018. Since at all given point of time, respondent no. 8 had been harassing the petitioner therefore, he was also not paid retiral dues which could only be paid in favour of petitioner after three years of struggle on account of hindrance having been made by respondent no. 8. In this background, petitioner would have all the right to assail the continuance of respondent no. 8 as Assistant Teacher. Copy of the resolution dated 20.12.2018 is being appended here with this and marked as Annexure No. 7 to this writ petition.” 3. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner is confronted with locus of petitioner and he fairly admits that he has no locus to challenge the appointment of Respondent-8, however, there were earlier orders to initiate inquiry to verify whether Respondent-8 was qualified or not and till date no action has been taken, therefore, he has a right to pray that inquiry be concluded in accordance with law. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the above submission and submitted that prayer made in this writ petition, i.e., to nullify the appointment of Respondent-8 be rejected. 5. Petitioner is retired from service about 6-7 years ago and instead of enjoying a peaceful life he is after the Respondent-8 to disturb his peaceful life and has challenged his appointment after about 36 years ago. 6. Contents of para 24 of writ petition, on face of it, disclose that action of petitioner is mala fide and he wants to take a revenge since allegedly he has suffered by the action of Respondent-8. Even otherwise, to challenge the appointment of Respondent-8 after such a long period would also be against the interest of justice. If petitioner was so bona fide, he ought to have approach this Court at the earliest to pursue an inquiry initiated against Respondent-8, but he waited for a very long time. Therefore, this writ petition is also suffered with laches. 7. In view of above, I find no merit in writ petition. Dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad