Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010141982025 2026:GAU-AS:959 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4636/2025 BIBEKANANDA DEHINGIA S/O- LABA DEHINGIA, R/O- VILL.- BETONI MAY GAON, P.S. KHOWANG, P.O. KHOWANG, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 785675. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK-12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION RUKMINI NAGAR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE (BSF) BLOCK NO. 10 LODHI ROAD PRAGATI VIHAR NEW DELHI-110003. 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF) Page No.# 2/5 BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI-110003. 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-793011. 8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BOARDER FORCE (ITBP) BLOCK NO. 10 LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SHAHASRA SEEMA BAL (SSB) 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-110022 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Kanu, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Roy, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 28.01.2026 Heard Mr. A.K. Kanu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondents. Page No.# 3/5 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in recommending the petitioner for appointment as Constable (GD) in CAPFs pursuant to the Employment Notice dated 21.07.2018 against an unreserved post. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Coordinate Benches of this Court had passed orders directing the respondents to accommodate similarly situated petitioners, as and when vacancies arise to the post of Constable (GD) in any of the Central Armed Police Forces after verifying whether such petitioners had secured higher marks than the last selected General Category candidate. 4. Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that all these orders which have been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in respect to writ petitions filed sometime in the year 2023. However, in the instant case the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition only in the year 2025. In the meantime, not only 1 (one) but 2 (two) further advertisements have been issued for filling up various posts. The learned CGC further submitted that taking into account the delay and laches, the learned Coordinate Benches of this Court have dismissed similar writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners therein had Page No.# 4/5 approached the Court late. In that regard, reference was made to the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.06.2024 in WP(C) No. 3322/2024 (Sajal Sinha & 2 Others Vs. The Union of India & 9 Others) and the order dated 23.10.2024 in WP(C) No. 4425/2024 (Manash Protim Gogoi Vs. The Union of India & 4 Others). 5. This Court has duly taken note of the explanations so given by the petitioner in the writ petition. 6. From a perusal of the contents of the writ petition, the explanation so given is that the petitioner met with an accident sometime in the year 2024 and as such he was immobilized for a very long period of time and as such could not approach this Court. 7. It is pertinent to take note of at this stage that the accident of the petitioner occurred only in the year 2024 and in the meantime the posts had already been filled up sometime in the latter part of 2023. The results were declared sometime in the year 2021 and there is no explanation, as to why, the petitioner could not approach this Court from the year 2021 to 2024. 8. Taking into account the above, this Court is also of the opinion that the explanations so provided by the petitioner does not appear to be reasonable and accordingly the instant writ Page No.# 5/5 petition suffers from delay and laches. 9. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, for which, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant