IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.11882 of 2024 Date of Decision:07.02.2025 Satnam Singh .....Pe++oner Vs. State of Punjab and ors. .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate for the pe oner. Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of this pe on filed under Ar cles 226/227 of the Cons tu on of India, pe oner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of cer orari for quashing the selec on dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure P.12), vide which respondents No.3 to 15 have been selected for the post of Smith duly adver sed by the respondent on contract basis. 2 It is contended that pursuant to the adver sement Annexure P.1, pe oner applied for the post of Smith and was issued iden ty card. He appeared in the wri:en examina on and passed the same. He was put in the selected roll numbers as per Annexure P5. The eligible candidates were then called for the examina on of physical / prac cal test but name of the pe oner did not figure therein as per Annexure P6. As pe oner came to know about the said fact, he approached the respondents but they did not give any sa sfactory reply. Pe oner approached this Court by filing CWP No.12395/2015, which was allowed on 12.06.2015 vide Annexure P.7, whereby respondents were directed to permit the pe oner to appear in the physical test to be held on 15.06.2015 but making it clear that it will not confer any right to claim appointment. It is contended that pe oner then par cipated in the physical test but was held to be not en tled for selec on, as he had passed diploma of ITI in the trade of Carpenter, whereas the requisite qualifica on was diploma in ITI in the trade of Motor Page No.1 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.02.07 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Vehicle Body Builder. The selec on list was finalised and respondents No.3 to 15 were selected. Learned counsel contends that he has been held to be not suitable only for passing ITI in different trade. 3. On advance no ce, Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab, appears on behalf of the respondent- State. 4. As rightly pointed out by learned State Counsel that pe oner is assailing the selec on dated 18.09.2015 by approaching this Court by way of this pe on filed in April, 2024 i.e. aBer more than 08 years. 5. Learned counsel for the pe oner is unable to explain this inordinate delay in approaching the Court so as to challenge the selec on of respondents No.3 to 15. 6. Thus, pe on is evidently hit by the principles of long delay and latches. For filing of a writ pe on under Ar cles 226 of the Indian Cons tu on, there is no strict statute of limita on. However, this does not mean that delays are en rely overlooked. The courts apply the principles of delay and latches to determine the reasonableness of the delay in filing such a pe on. In this regard, courts have significant discre on to decide whether a delay is unreasonable. They consider factors such as the jus fica on for the delay, poten al prejudice to the opposing party, and the public interest involved. Delays are more likely to be overlooked if the issue pertains to public interest or affects a large number of people. If the delay is deemed unreasonable and causes prejudice to the other party, or if the pe oner has acquiesced to the situa on, the court may dismiss the pe on. 7. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 2271, Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed as under: “A person aggrieved by an order of promo ng a junior over his bead should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promo on. It is not that 'here is any period of limita on for the Courts to exercise their powers under Ar cle 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a ma:er aBer the passage of a certain length of me. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discre on for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra- Page No.2 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.02.07 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh ordinary powers under Ar cle 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expedi ously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unse:le se:led ma:ers. The pe oner's pe on should, therefore have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such pe ons is a waste of me of the court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the court in considering legi mate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High court was right in dismissing the appellant's pe on as well as the appeal.” 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held in Mrinmoy Maity Vs Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 551, as under:- “9. Having heard rival conten ons raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ pe oner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ pe on ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An Applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of me, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court me and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discre onary powers under Ar cle 226 of the Cons tu on of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of ac on to driB away and a:empts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of ac on. 10. The discre on to be exercised would be with care and cau on. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contes ng party that for all mes to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdic on and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathema cal precision. The ul mate discre on to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have traveled. Page No.3 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.02.07 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 11. For filing of a writ pe on, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limita on is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdic on of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable me same has been invoked and even submiJng of memorials would not revive the dead cause of ac on or resurrect the cause of ac on which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ pe oner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the pe on on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permiJng such indolent li gant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discre onary jurisdic on under Ar cle 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into considera on the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. 9. It is thus clear that High Court should not entertain the writ pe on and should dismiss the same on the ground of delay and latches, when there is no explana on of delay. The applicant who approaches the Court belatedly or sleeps over his rights for considerable period, does not deserve to be granted the extra-ordinary relief by invoking the writ jurisdic on of the Court. It is se:led proposi on of law that delay defeats equity. High Court will be well within its jurisdic on to refuse to invoke its writ powers, if there is laxity on behalf of the applicant, as the said laxity allows the cause of ac on to driB away and a:empts to rekindle the lapse cause of ac on. Even the delayed mul ple communica ons cannot create cause of ac on. 10. In the present case also, there is absolutely no explana on for delay of more than 08 years in approaching the court. The conten on that the pe oner can approach the court at any point of me because of recurring cause, has no merit, as by his act and conduct, pe oner acquiesced in the ac on of the respondents and, therefore, at this belated stage, pe oner cannot be allowed to put forth his grievance. Page No.4 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.02.07 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 11. As such, the present pe on is hereby dismissed being badly hit by the doctrine of delay and latches, as this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdic on. February 07, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No.5 out of 5 pages RENU 2025.02.07 19:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh