JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 – the High Court of J&K and Ladakh, to consider her for appointment as Senior Scale Stenographer retrospectively with all consequential benefits under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category against the vacancy advertised vide Advertisement Notice dated 03.01.2012. 2. Briefly stated the case set up by the petitioner is that pursuant to the Advertisement Notification dated 03.01.2012, she applied for the post of Senior Scale Stenographer under the SC category. She also applied for the post of Junior Scale Stenographer. The selection process concluded in May 2014. While the petitioner was selected and appointed as Junior Scale Stenographer vide Order No. 100 dated 09.05.2014, she was not selected for the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. It is the case of the petitioner that she later discovered in September 2018, upon inspecting the records of a related litigation (Raj Kumar v. High Court of J&K), that she was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list for the Senior Scale Stenographer post. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of her candidature from the waiting list, she has approached this Court. 3. The respondents have contested the petition primarily on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. It is contended that the selection process concluded in 2014, yet the petitioner approached this Court only in 2018, that too after becoming aware of the outcome of a similar litigation filed by another candidate. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 5. The first and foremost objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on account of huge delay appears to be well-founded. The selection process concluded, and the petitioner was appointed as Junior Scale Stenographer in May 2014. She remained silent for more than four years. It was only after she came to know that another similarly situated person had succeeded in litigation, she filed the present petition in 2018. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Miss Ajay Walia (1997) 6 SCC 255 , has held that writ petitions suffering from inordinate delay and laches deserve to be dismissed outrightly. In the present case, the petitioner has offered no satisfactory explanation for the silence of four years. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Miss Ajay Walia (1997) 6 SCC 255 , has held that writ petitions suffering from inordinate delay and laches deserve to be dismissed outrightly. In the present case, the petitioner has offered no satisfactory explanation for the silence of four years. The explanation that she came to know about the waiting list only in 2018 is not convincing, especially considering that she was serving within the precincts of the High Court and the results were uploaded on the official website. Her conduct clearly indicates that she was a "fence sitter" who waited for the outcome of another's litigation, which conduct cannot be countenanced in law.Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has since been promoted/appointed as Senior Scale Stenographer. Consequently, the relief sought for appointment to the very post has been rendered infructuous. 7. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, being hopelessly time-barred, and further on the ground that the same has been rendered infructuous as the petitioner has already attained the position of Senior Scale Stenographer.