A. K. YOG, J. Heard above learned counsels for the parties. Perused record of the case. 2. At the outset, we may note that Special Appeal No. 497/2003 - Sabha Shanker Ojha v. State of U. P. & others, was filed and, on our Bench having nominated by Honble the Chief Justice vide order dated 3-7- 2003, said Special Appeal came up before us for consideration and consequently we passed following order dated 14-8-2003, which is reproduced: "this Special Appeal arises from interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 25749/2003 dated 16-6-2003 by a learned Single Judge refusing to grant stay and directing Respondents to allow candidate selected by UPSESSB to join, in view of the order dated 07th July, 2003 and order dated 15th July, 2003, nothing that the learned counsels for the parties had agreed that instead of the Special Appeal, Writ Petition itself be heard and decided finally on merits. In view of it, Writ Petition No. 25749 of 2003 itself heard and decided finally vide judgment and order dated 14-8-2003. This special appeal is rendered infructuous and, accordingly, rejected". 3. Adarsh Intermediate College, Hata Bazar, Post Shivpur, District Gorakhpur, called the College, imparting education upto Intermediate standard, is a recognized Institution on grant-in-aid list of the State Government as contemplated under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as amended up to date. Appointments of teaching staff in the College are subject to and governed by the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, as amended up to date, as well as the Rules and the Regulations framed thereunder. 4. On the statement made on behalf of all the concerned parties through their respective Counsels and consequent joint request at the Bar, we called for the record of Writ Petition No. 23311 of 1990 - Jagdish Prasad Shukla v. D. I. O. S. & others; Writ Petition No. 31846 of 2002, J. P. Shukla v. State of U. P. & others and Writ Petition No. 54139 of 2002, Jagdish Prasad Shukla v. UPSESSB & others, to hear and decide them all finally (since these cases rest on common facts and conflicting claims, between same parties with respect to their divergent claims to hold the post of Principal of the College ). 5. Undisputed facts, as admitted to the learned counsels for the parties, are reproduced hereinafter. 6. 5. Undisputed facts, as admitted to the learned counsels for the parties, are reproduced hereinafter. 6. Erstwhile Principal of the Institution Bhaskar Prasad Diwedi, on attaining age of superannuation, retired on June 30, 1990. Consequently, the post of Principal in the college fell vacant w. e. f. July 1, 1990. The Management of the College proceeded to make ad hoc (temporary/ officiating) appointed and gave charge of the post of Principal of the College to one R. P. Pandey, said to be the then senior most lecturer of the College. 7. J. P. Shukla - another lecturer in the college, disputed seniority of above R. P. Pandey and claimed to be the senior most lecturer - felt aggrieved by the aforesaid ad hoc appointed of Principal of the college. 8. This lead to the filing of Writ Petition No. 23311 of 1990, J. P. Shukla v. D. I. O. S. , Gorakhpur & others, wherein said J. P. Shukla challenged validity of the managements order appointing R. P. Pandey as ad hoc Principal as well as for payment of salary in the Principals scale w. e. f. July 1, 1990. Record of said pending writ petition was summoned with prior notice to Sri V. B. Khare, Advocate, representing J. P. Shukla (petitioner in said Writ Petition), who made statement before this Court that said petition has been rendered infructuous by passage of time as J. P. Shukla has meanwhile on 30-6-2003 attained age of superannuation. Shri Khare, Advocate made a statement requesting this Court to dismiss the said writ petition. In view of the above, request of Shri Khare, Advocate, also that now it is a mere formality and also to save time of the Court, registry and the Advocates Writ Petition has been dismissed today by separate order on the record of said case. No other counsel has any objection to (sic ). 9. U. P. Secondary Education Selection Board (called the board) in due course issued Advertisement No. 1 of 2002 for selecting Principal in recognized Inter Colleges in the State of U. P. including the post of Principal in the college. 10. J. P. Shukla again filed Writ Petition No. 31846/2002 - J. P. Shukla v. State of U. P. & others, and challenged the said Advertisement. 10. J. P. Shukla again filed Writ Petition No. 31846/2002 - J. P. Shukla v. State of U. P. & others, and challenged the said Advertisement. The Board, however, proceeded to complete the selection process and declared the name of one Bhola Nath Srivastava, respondent No. 5 as selected for the post of Principal in the College vide Notification dated 16-11-2002. 11. J. P. Shukla then filed Application No. 209881 of 2002 in Writ Petition No. 31846 of 2002 - praying for withdrawing the petition as infractuous. Court allowed said application vide order dated 12-12-2002: "civil Misc. Withdrawal Application No. 209881 of 2002 has been filed by the petitioner. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that because of the subsequent development that a regularly selected candidate by the Selection Board has been sent as Principal of the College, the petitioner may be permitted to be withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the appointment of such candidate also. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. " 12. It is admitted to all that Jagdish Prasad Shukla continued to hold the post of Principal on Ad hoc/officiating basis till 30-6-2003, as no regularly selected candidate by the Commission, according to said J. P. Shukla was allegedly available and came to join on the post of Principal in the college. 13. Another Writ Petition No. 54139 of 2002 - Jagdish Prasad Shukla v. UPSESSB, was filed to challenge Notification dated 16-11-2002 containing name of Bhola Nath Srivastava, Respondent No. 5, as candidate selected for being appointed on the post of Principal in the college. 14. Para 10 of the said Writ Petition reads: "that the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad has issued an advertisement No. 1 of 2002 which has been published in the news paper `dainik Jagaran dated 3-3-2002 whereby the vacancies have been notified for making regular selection on the post of Principal of a large number of educational Institution including the post of the Principal of the present institution. " 15. " 15. In the said Writ Petition No. 54139 of 2002, this Court passed following order dated 24-4-2003: "sri Anil Kumar and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents are allowed one months time to file counter affidavit on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Thrice weeks thereafter is allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. Sri V. B. Khare states that once this Court is satisfied only then notice should be issued to respondents No. 4 and 5. Any appointment made by the respondents shall be subject to decision of this Writ Petition. " 16. In this Writ Petition Sri V. B. Khare Advocate made a statement that it is rendered infructuous and we passed order dated 14-8-2003 - which reads: "sri V. B. Khare learned counsel states that the present petition has been rendered infructuous since Sri J. P. Shukla petitioner has already retired on 30th June, 2003. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. " 17. Present Writ Petition No. 25749 of 2003 is the latest addition to the protracted litigation noted above. It has been filed on 12-6-2003 by Sabha Shankar Ojha against selection of Bhola Nath Srivastava by the Commission with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Commission Notification dated 16-11-2002. 18. Apparently present petitioner, Sabha Shanker Ojha, came forward to approach the Court, when J. P. Shukla, ad hoc Principal retired and abandoned his right to challenge selection process by the UPSE Selection Board. 19. Sabha Shanker Ojha, filed writ petition No. 25749 of 2003, praying before this Court to: - Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16-11-2002 (i. e. regular appointment of Bhola Nath Srivastava, Respondent No. 5) communicating to petitioner on 6-6-2003, annexed as Annexure-4 to this petition; Issue such other order or direction as this Court deem fit, and an order as to cost. 20. For appreciating ingenuity and the crux of the modus operandi of J. P. Shukla and Sabha Shanker Ojha - present petitioner and the Manager of the College - upto certain stage - writ paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 32 & 33 of writ petition No. 25749/2003 reproduced below be perused: " (3) That the petitioner is placed at serial No. 2 in the seniority list of the lecturers working in the institution. The Senior Most lecturer namely Jagdish Prasad Shukla is going to be retired on 30-6-03. He has taken earned leave since 20th May, 03 and the management of the institution has given the charge of the post of principal of the institution to the petitioner. A true copy of the seniority list and the order of the management along with the resolution passed by the management of the institution. (4) That the petitioner has been discharging the duty of the officiating principal of the institution till date. (5) That on 6-6-03 the manager of the institution inform the petitioner that the candidate. (6) That on 6-6-2003 the Manager of the institution informed that the D. I. O. S. is insisting that candidate selected by the Board of Secondary Education will join his posting as Principal of the institution on 6-6- 2003. The petitioner was given the order - dated 16-11-2002 along with the letter dated 25-11-2002 by the Management, respondent No. 4, which was received by the respondent No. 4. A true copy of the order dated 16-11-2002 and letter dated 25-11-2002 are annexed as Annexures 1 & 2 to this writ petition. (7) That the petitioner was totally unaware of any selection proceedings undertaken by the respondents. It is stated that no notice or information was given to the petitioner before selecting the candidates for the post of Principal of the institution. (32) "that the petitioner has come a cross the writ petition filed by Sri Jagdish Prasad Shukla who also pleaded that he had not received any information before the selection of the respondent No. 5 and he has not been considered for being selection of the post of Principal of the institution. In the aforesaid writ petition, this Honble Court was pleased to direct the respondents to seek instruction whether the petitioner and the others senior most lecturer had received any information before selecting the respondents by its direction dated 6-1-2003. It is stated that no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in the aforesaid writ petition which conclusively proves that no information whatsoever was given to the petitioner before selecting the respondents. The aforesaid selecting the respondents the aforesaid selection is unsustainable in the eyes of law. (33) That Sri Jagdish Prasad in his writ petition No. 54139/2002 challenging the selection dated 16-11- 2002 in paragraphs 13 and 14 alleged as follows: Para 13. The aforesaid selecting the respondents the aforesaid selection is unsustainable in the eyes of law. (33) That Sri Jagdish Prasad in his writ petition No. 54139/2002 challenging the selection dated 16-11- 2002 in paragraphs 13 and 14 alleged as follows: Para 13. That neither the petitioner nor Mr. Sabha Shanker Ojha the lecturer for interview in drawing were called for interview by the Board. The petitioner does not know the date on which the interview that held as neither the District Inspector of Schools nor the Board sent any letter calling the petitioner for interview. It is only recently when the result of the selection was published in the paper. The petitioner came to know that the opposite party No. 5 has been recommended by the Board appointment as Principal in the institution. Para 14. That the selection made by the Board without calling for the interview the petitioner and Sri Sabha Shanker Ojha is illegal as it was mandatory for board to have call them for interview. 21. Sabha Shanker Ojha has clearly concealed/avoided to disclose the date - as to when and how he came to have knowledge of the writ petitions filed by J. P. Shukla (referred to above ). It is not difficult to lift the veil and unreveal the truth. It is more than obvious that Sabha Shanker Ojha had full knowledge of the litigation shared by J. P. Shukla, J. P. Shukla on the other hand managed (though illegally) to hold the post of Principal on Ad hoc basis by manipulations and that now Sabha Shanker Ojha has filed the writ petition to somehow grab the post - if possible though interocution of Court, and perpetuate Ad hocism. 22. However, in view of order of this Court dated 24-4-2003 (quoted above) in one of the writ petition of J. P. Shukla. Bhola Nath Srivastava / Respondent No. 5 (selected by Board) ought to have been allowed to join the College as principal. 23. Again writ paras 3 and 4 (sworn on personal knowledge) of present writ petition (quoted above) go a long way in drawing an inference that Sabha Shanker Ojha has cooked up a story to somehow seek interim order. Interestingly Shabha Shanker Ojha has filed no document to show his working as officiating Principal: secondly officiating working gives no statutory enforceable right. Moreover Committee of Management has not supported his claim. 24. Interestingly Shabha Shanker Ojha has filed no document to show his working as officiating Principal: secondly officiating working gives no statutory enforceable right. Moreover Committee of Management has not supported his claim. 24. It is stated that no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents replying the aforesaid averments till date. " 25. Petitioner, Sabha Shanker Ojha, conveniently avoided to disclose as to how and when he exactly came to know of the pendency of the writ petition/s filed by Jagdish Prasad Shukla (in whose shoes he wants to step into ). 26. Sabha Shanker Ojha, the petitioner, did not vindicate his right of being called to face the interview by the Board, which accrued as soon as he came to occupy second position among the Lecturers of the college. On the other hand he preferred to keep himself in the background. Now he banks upon the ingenuity to get appointed Principal of the college on ad hoc basis, just as managed by J. P. Shukla and thus keep regularly selected candidate of the Commission at the fence through wrangles of litigation. 27. Para-9 of the counter affidavit, filed by respondent No. 4/committee of Management of the College, reads: "that it is not in dispute that the post of Principal of the institution was advertised in various new papers under Advertisement No. 1/2002 and at no point of time the petitioner made any representation either before the management or before the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur setting up him claim for being considered on the post of Principal of the institution on the criteria of his being senior most of one of the two teachers. In these circumstances the writ petition filed on his behalf is totally misconceived and baseless. " 28. Said para-9 of the counter affidavit has been replied vide para 5 of the rejoinder affidavits, relevant extract is quoted: "it is stated that the petitioner was totally unaware for the date fixed for interview for selecting Principal in the institution. " 29. In these circumstances the writ petition filed on his behalf is totally misconceived and baseless. " 28. Said para-9 of the counter affidavit has been replied vide para 5 of the rejoinder affidavits, relevant extract is quoted: "it is stated that the petitioner was totally unaware for the date fixed for interview for selecting Principal in the institution. " 29. Relevant extracts of para-9 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, Bhola Nath Srivastava (candidate selected by the Commission) reads: - "the petitioner did not take any steps to get his name along with service record sent to the Board through the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur so that he may be considered by the Board for appointment to the post of Principal in the Institution. " 30. Para-5 of the rejoinder affidavit in reply to said para-9 of the counter affidavit, reads: "that the averments made in paragraphs 7, 8, & 9 of counter affidavit are absolutely false and specifically denied. As stated in aforesaid paragraph of this rejoinder affidavit the petitioner was working as a Principal of the institution in the month of May, June and July, 2003. The petitioner had no knowledge of the advertisement No. 1/2002 by which the selection proceeding for selecting the Principal of the institution had commenced. The petitioner reside at Ojhauli which is village located in District Gorakhpur. In the aforesaid village the newspapers are hardly circulated, the paper Dainik Jagran in which the alleged advertisement is published has no circulation in village Ojhauli District Gorakhpur. The institution namely Adarsh Inter College, Hata Bazar Shivpur, Gorakhpur is located at about 15 Km. from village Ojhauli. The place Hata Bazar is also a village. The petitioner had no knowledge of the advertisement of the selection proceeding initiated with the advertisement. " 31. We are, therefore, not inclined to believe that petitioner had no knowledge of the advertisement in question and /or the litigation between similarly situated other parties, i. e. J. P. Shukla and Bhola Nath Srivastava. 32. We may refer to letter dated 8th June, 2003 (Annexure-3 to the rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit of the Management) addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, which shows that manager had entered into correspondence wherein name of present petitioner is mentioned. 32. We may refer to letter dated 8th June, 2003 (Annexure-3 to the rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit of the Management) addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, which shows that manager had entered into correspondence wherein name of present petitioner is mentioned. It shows that the Management espoused the cause of Sabha Shanker Ojha at relevant time in the past. It clearly reflects that Sabha Shanker Ojha was in the background and aware of the developments in the matter while manager of the college espoused his cause before the Courts as well as before the Board. 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that equity lies in his favour. There is no merit in the submission. Sabha Shankar Ojha slept over his rights for appointment on regular basis and came to the Court when his chance to become Ad hoc Principal had ripened, which in the facts of this case unfortunately, too late in the day for him. The Board and other candidates have gone too far, to their prejudice, in holding regular selection - only because Sabha Shanker Ojha did not care to challenge the Advertisement or consequential selection promptly at the initial stages. 34. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the case of Kedar Nath Awasthi v. Administrator (Nagar Mahapalika), 1984 UPLBEC 914. It may be pointed out that according to relevant Rule 6, it was statutorily incumbent upon the Commission to have called for interview two senior most Teachers in the college under clause (1) of Rule 4. 35. Petitioner was not among two senior most teachers of the College, when the advertisement was issued. He became No. 2 in the seniority list of the College only when one R. P. Pandey lecturer of the college retired on 30-6-1998. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to inform the Manager and the concerned authorities (including Board) the above fact and inclusion of his name in the eligibility field. Petitioner failed to do so. We are, with regrets, unable to believe that the petitioner was not aware of the Selection Proceedings since July 1, 1998 till 6th June, 2003. 36. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to inform the Manager and the concerned authorities (including Board) the above fact and inclusion of his name in the eligibility field. Petitioner failed to do so. We are, with regrets, unable to believe that the petitioner was not aware of the Selection Proceedings since July 1, 1998 till 6th June, 2003. 36. If the petitioner, being fully aware and with knowledge of all above facts, took no steps to press his claim at the first opportunity, then in not having done so, the petitioner is himself to thank him and be held responsible for permitting the Board to proceed with the selection process and select respondent No. 5. Petitioner has to thank him for all that and cannot blame for sleeping over for such a long time. He is now estopped from challenging said selection by putting lame excuses by forging stories. 37. Those who are dealing with and involved with justice delivery system - know it for more than certain it is one of the striking paradoxes of law that in majority of cases a delinquent person in his anxiety to overreach/bypass and/or to elude coils of legal machinery, tends to exaggerate or magnify his own misbehaviour. Backdrop of events and setting of the actions of concerned speak for themselves and leaves for nothing to infer. Again common principal is - "the law helps those who are alert and not those who sleep on their rights ("vigilentibus Et Non Dormentibus Jura Sub Veniunt" ). 38. Original record of Secondary Education - Board was also perused. It indicates that letters meant for sending to the senior most lecturers of the college were not sent on correct address. We find that these letters were not addressed in the names of particular teachers. This is also not proper. Commission is directed to take action against the delinquent. Chairman of the Commission will ensure that letters to senior most lecturers are sent by registered post/a. D. in the names of senior most lecturers as indicated in Appendix-A, and not to those who do not take action at the right time. Legal Maxim - In Peri Delicto Potior Est Canditio Possidentis" (i. e. when both parties are equally at fault the defendants position is better ). 39. In view of the above, we find no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Legal Maxim - In Peri Delicto Potior Est Canditio Possidentis" (i. e. when both parties are equally at fault the defendants position is better ). 39. In view of the above, we find no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, we refuse to invoke our extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India and accordingly Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25749/2003 - Sabha Shankar Ojha v. State of U. P. & others, stands dismissed. 40. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .