Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–Heard Shri Sunil Samdaria for the appellant and Shri R.K. Goyal for the respondents. (2). This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.9.1998, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4068/1995, whereby the writ petition wad dismissed. (3). The facts, in brief, are as follows:- The appellant preferred writ petition before this Court seeking directions to quash and set aside the results of the re- typing test and the interviews held on 31.10.1992 and 9.11.1992 respectively and also to quash and set aside the consequential appointment letter (Ex.6) in respect of respondents No. 4 to 6 in the writ petition. A further prayer was also sought for issuance of the directions by this court to the respondents to prepare a fair select list of 17 candidates who were interviewed on 30.9.1992, on the basis of passing original qualifying typing test in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules, 1992 and consequently issue appointment order accordingly for 13 declared vacant posts. (4). We have perused the entire writ petition and the material available on record. On 20.09.1995 this Court issued a show cause notice to the respondents in the writ petition. Thereafter, a reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents. A rejoinder to the reply was also filed by the writ petitioner. (5). The learned Single Judge, after hearing arguments, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 18.9.1998 only on the ground of delay and latches. (6). As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, the facts, circumstances of the case and also the grounds made thereunder, were not touched and considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge made serious observations in respect of the illegalities committed and arbitrary action taken by the respondents in the procedure adopted and in declaring the select list (Anx. 6). Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. (7). According to Mr. Samdaria, the order dated 18.9.1998, passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts and circumstances as enumerated in the writ petition and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6). Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. (7). According to Mr. Samdaria, the order dated 18.9.1998, passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts and circumstances as enumerated in the writ petition and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. It has also been submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that in the matter of public employment and in the selection process, if the illegalities and arbitrariness are proved by the documents on record, supported by the averments made on oath by the appellant particularly, when the allegations of malafides are alleged against the respondent No. 2 and which have not been denied by the respondents, then the question of delay and latches should not come in the way of imparting justice so as to maintain the fairness in the selection process. (8). We see merit and substance in the above contentions, raised by the learned counsel. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the appellant took certain grounds to explain the delay, which had been caused in filing the writ petition. As such, in our opinion, the dismissal of the writ petition, only on the ground of delay and latches is not justified and the same is against the two rulings of this court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal & 16 Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (1) and in the case of Firdosh Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2). (9). In RLW 2000(3) page 1544, the Division Bench of this Court (supra), in an identical matter, held as under:- ``The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of latches and availability of alternate remedy in a case where violation of fundamental right and principles of natural justice are alleged in the writ petition. In AIR 1962 SC 1506 (2), the Supreme Court has held that if there is allegation of violation of principles of natural justice or violation of any provision of the Act or the Rules, the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay or latches or alternative remedy is not proper. (10). In AIR 1962 SC 1506 (2), the Supreme Court has held that if there is allegation of violation of principles of natural justice or violation of any provision of the Act or the Rules, the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay or latches or alternative remedy is not proper. (10). A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Khressiamma vs. Union of India (3), held that after the writ petition is admitted, it has to be disposed of on merits and the dismissal of the writ petition after the lapse of some years on the ground of alternative remedy or on the ground of delay will not ordinarily be justified. (11). In the instant case, as already noticed, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of on merits. The respondents had also filed reply to the writ petition and a rejoinder to the reply was also filed by the appellant herein. Under such circumstances, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, ought to have disposed of the matter on merits and in accordance with law. In the instant case, the appellant has specifically raised violation of his fundamental rights and has alleged certain malafides against the second respondent. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 6.5.1998, stated in paras No. 2 to 4 as follows:- ``The case has been heard at length, Certain malafides have been alleged in regard to selection of respondents No. 4 & 5. No one has appeared on their behalf despite of service. They are proceeded ex-parte. No affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 to deny the malafide alleged against him in regard to appointment of respondents No. 4 & 5, even though he is being represented by Mr. Goyal. For the reasons that allegations specifically levelled against respondent No. 2 have not been denied, a presumption can be drawn about truthfulness of those allegations. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that complete record of selection in question be produced in Court by the respondent for perusal of the Court on next date of hearing. (12). Pursuant to the above directions, the entire record was placed before the learned Single Judge. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that complete record of selection in question be produced in Court by the respondent for perusal of the Court on next date of hearing. (12). Pursuant to the above directions, the entire record was placed before the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the question of delay of more than three years in filing the writ petition. (13). In the case of Mehesh Kumar Khandelwal and 16 Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra), a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- ``However, at this juncture, we may take note of the contention that writ petitions have been filed with considerable delay and hence they should be thrown out on this very ground. We may state that delay by itself is not an impregnable hurdle to the maintainability of the writ petition. Since, the writ petitions have been finally heard on merits at admission stage, we are not inclined to dismiss these writ petitions on the technical ground of delay only and we propose to decide them on merits. The question of delay ceases to be of material relevance when both the sides have been heard extensively on the merits of the case. Hence the contention of the respondents that the petitions should be thrown out on the ground of delay, does not commend itself to us and we reject the same. We may here note that in the counter, some other preliminary objections were also taken. But, the respondents have not pressed them. Hence, we proceed to decide the writ petitions on merits. (14). In view of the above ruling and also the order passed by the other Division Bench in RLW 2000(3) Raj. 1544 (supra), we are of the opinion that the appeal has to be allowed at the appellant should be given a chance to re-argue the matter before the learned Single Judge on merits and with reference to the record already placed before the Court. In the foregoing circumstances, the order, passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.9.1998 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4068/1995 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Bench. Office to place the matter before the Regular Single Bench for hearing on merits and disposing of the same accordingly. In the foregoing circumstances, the order, passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.9.1998 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4068/1995 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Bench. Office to place the matter before the Regular Single Bench for hearing on merits and disposing of the same accordingly. No order as to costs.