- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34524 WP No. 21418 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21418 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. B NAGARAJU S/O LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RTD ASSISTANT TEACHER (CBZ), R/AT NEAR KEB OFFICE, CHOWKI MATA, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMAKURU-572 214. (PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNDARESH H C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34524 WP No. 21418 of 2025 5. THE SECRETARY, BALIJA SANGHA REGISTERED, DHARMAVARADA STREET, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDHARTH BABU RAO., AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, BENGALURU IN APPL NO. 1/2009 DTD 24.06.2014 AS PER ANNX-G AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R-1 TO APPROVE THE POST OF THE PETITIONER WITH SALARY GRANT AND RELEASE ALL ARREARS OF THE SALARY FROM THE DATE OF HIS APPROVAL OF THE POST WITHOUT AID AS PER ANNEXURE-B DATED 15.09.92 VIDE NO.ANU-3/ASU-33/92-93 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority and Director of Secondary Education, Bengaluru in Appl.No.1/2009, whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 has submitted that the impugned order has passed in the year 2014 and after lapse of 11 years, the writ petition - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34524 WP No. 21418 of 2025 has been filed. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. The order passed by the Appellate Authority and Director of Secondary Education, Bengaluru in Appl.No.1/2009 under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 vide Annexure-G is on 24.06.2014. The same has been challenged before this Court after lapse of 11 years and there is no proper reason given for delay in filing the writ petition. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh, Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Ram Gopal reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225 has held in paragraph No.11 is extracted herein below: “11. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and the writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34524 WP No. 21418 of 2025 exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, this Court observed thus : (SCC p. 485, para 17) “17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”. … It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.”” 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6