1 CGHC010252492026 2026:CGHC:29447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5188 of 2026 Sachendralal Chandra S/o Shri Bahoriklal Chandra Aged About 60 Years Occupation - Head Master, Government Primary School Bastipara Kachanda, R/o Gram Bodsara, Janpad Panchayat Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2. Director Directorate Of Panchayat Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Sakti, District Sakti 4. Collector Sakti, District Sakti, C.G. 5. District Education Officer Sakti, District Sakti, C.G. 6. Block Education Officer Block Jaijaipur, District Sakti, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Dahariya, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 13/07/2026 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.14 10:42:20 +0530 2 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 17.07.1998 (Annexure P-1). It is submitted that despite being senior, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II in the DPCs held in the years 2009 and 2011, whereas his juniors were promoted. The petitioner was ultimately promoted in the year 2022. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure P-2) seeking promotion from the due date with all consequential benefits, but the same has not been considered till date. 2. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about 17 years. It is contended that the claim is hopelessly barred by delay and laches and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner's grievance pertains to the DPCs held in the years 2009 and 2011, wherein his juniors were allegedly promoted. The petitioner, however, has approached this Court only in the year 2026 seeking retrospective promotion from the year 2009. Thus, the claim suffers from an unexplained delay of almost 17 years. 3 5. It is the duty of the Court to examine whether such enormous delay deserves to be condoned in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. Remaining oblivious to such delay does not advance the cause of justice; rather, it may unsettle rights that have long attained finality and adversely affect the vested rights of third parties. A writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not expected to extend equitable relief to an indolent litigant who has slept over his alleged rights for an inordinate period. The doctrine of delay and laches is founded on sound principles of public policy to ensure certainty and finality in legal relations. Every legal remedy has a reasonable lifespan within which it must be invoked, failing which the Court may decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 6. It is well settled that in service jurisprudence, particularly in matters relating to promotion and seniority, the doctrine of delay and laches assumes greater significance. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution not to entertain stale claims relating to promotion or seniority after an unreasonable lapse of time, as entertaining such claims would unsettle settled positions and unnecessarily burden the judicial process. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed to 4 furnish any plausible explanation for approaching this Court after an inordinate delay of nearly 17 years. Merely submitting a representation does not revive a stale cause of action nor does it extend the period for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit and suffering from gross delay and laches, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti