1 CGHC010284272026 2026:CGHC:32533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5712 of 2026 1 - Devlal Sonwani S/o Shri Paras Ram Sonwani, Aged About 56 Years R/o New Chandaniyapara, Janjgir, Police Station And Tahsil -Janjgir , District -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) Posted As Lecturer (Regular) And Was Working As In-Charge Principal At Govt. Higher Secondary School Balaudi, Block -Bilaigarh, District -Sarangarh -Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District -Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Collector Sarangarh, District -Sarangarh -Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5. The District Education Officer, Sarangarh, District -Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6. The Block Education Officer Bilaigarh, District -Sarangarh -Bilaigarh (C.G.) 7. Ramesh Kumar Lahre Posted As Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. Higher Secondary School Balaudi, Block- Bilaigarh, District -Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 29/07/2026 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.31 11:49:23 +0530 2 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher and, upon regularization, was subsequently promoted as Lecturer (English) by order dated 09.06.2015. It is submitted that pursuant to the rationalization process, the petitioner was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Balaudi, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, where, being the senior-most Lecturer, he was entrusted with the charge of In-charge Principal. He further submits that the petitioner was on medical leave from September, 2025 to November, 2025, respondent No. 5 issued the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 removing the petitioner from the charge of In- charge Principal and assigning the same to respondent No. 7, who is junior to the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and by an authority lacking jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 after an inordinate and unexplained delay. It is contended that the petitioner has neither furnished any satisfactory explanation for approaching this Court at such a belated stage nor demonstrated any exceptional circumstance warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the writ petition is hit by the principles of delay and laches and, therefore, is not maintainable. 3 Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 28.10.2025, whereas the present writ petition has been filed after a considerable lapse of time. The petitioner has neither furnished any plausible explanation for the delay nor disclosed any exceptional circumstance justifying the belated challenge. It is well settled that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must approach the Court with due diligence and within a reasonable time. 5. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay deserves to be ignored in the absence of any satisfactory justification. Remaining oblivious to such delay does not advance the cause of justice; rather, it may prejudice the rights that have accrued in favour of others and unsettle matters which have attained finality. The doctrine of delay and laches, like the law of limitation, is founded on the principles of repose and certainty. There must be a definite period within which a litigant approaches the Court for redressal of his grievance; otherwise, there would be perpetual uncertainty regarding the rights and obligations of the parties. An indolent litigant who sleeps over his rights is not entitled to invoke the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4 6. It is also a well-settled principle that delay assumes greater significance in service jurisprudence, particularly in matters relating to promotion, seniority and holding of higher charge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 observed that it would be a sound exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution not to entertain stale claims relating to service matters, as entertaining such claims after an inordinate delay would unnecessarily burden the Court and disturb settled positions. 7. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position and considering that the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay in assailing the impugned order dated 28.10.2025, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti