W.P.(C) 4518/2016 Page 1 of 3 $~111 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4518/2016 CHAUDHARY MAHESH KUMAR & ORS ...Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ...Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Behra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. P.K. Singh, Advs. for R - 4 to 26 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 23.07.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J . 1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is grossly hit by delay and laches and , on this sole ground, is liable to be dismissed. 2. The contention of Mr. Chhibber , who appears for the petitioner, is that at the time when respondents were appointed by way of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination 1 as Assistant Comandants 2 , the avenue for appointment by LDCE had yet not ben introduced in the Recruitment Rule s and that, therefore, the appointment was ipso facto illegal. 1 “LDCE” hereinafter 2 “ACs” hereinafter W.P.(C) 4518/2016 Page 2 of 3 3. That appointment took place on 25 September 2001. Thereafter, the petitioners were appointed as direct recruit AC s in 2002. It is an admitted position that, thereafter, almost every year , gradation list s were issued in which the respondents were shown as senior to the petitioner s . 4. T he petitioners were promoted as Deputy Comandants 3 in 2009 . The respondents had been promoted as DCs in 2008 - 09 . Even at that time, no challenge was laid to the initial appointment of the respondents. In the grade of DC, too, the gradation list was issued almost every year and it was only in 2014 that the appellants claimed to have applied under the Right to Information Act , 2005, and come to learn that the respondents’ original LDCE which was not permissible. 5. The writ petition does not contain any justifiable reason as to why the petitioners did not choose to wake up and acquiesce d to the respondents being shown as AC and thereafter as DC as senior to them over 14 years, before moving the Court. 6. In its recent decision in Chief Executive Oficer v S. Lalitha 4 , the Supreme Court has clearly held that , while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has to be alive to the aspect of delay and laches and should not allow stale claim s to be decided. The relevant paragraph from the said decision read s thus: 3 “DCs” hereinafter 4 2025 SC OnLine SC 916 W.P.(C) 4518/2016 Page 3 of 3 “24. The self - imposed restrictions in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 26 of the Constitution, which have evolved from judicial precedents of this Court, need not be restated here. Sufice to say, unexplained delay or laches is considered one of the factors which could asume significance in denying relief when the discretionary writ remedy is invoked. In an apropriate case, a writ court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if the aplicant's negligence or omision to asert his right combined with undue delay or laches and prejudice to the other party warants such refusal. ” 7. Following the aforesaid, we are not inclined to declare the appointment of the respondents, as far back as in 2001, to be illegal at the instance of the petitioners who moved the Court in 2015. 8. The writ petition is acordingly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches without going into the merits of the matter. C. HARI SHANKAR, J . OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J . JULY 23, 2025 dsn