JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - In this Writ Petition, challenge is made to the legality and propriety of the Order Dated 24.02.2003 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (for short, the 'Tribunal') under Annexure-7 directing the Petitioners to appoint the Opp. Party as a regular Primary School Teacher in the concerned Education Circle, which is earmarked for the category to which she belongs in the existing vacancy and if no such vacancy is available against the next future vacancy by relaxing Orissa (Elementary Education Service) Rules 1997, (for short, the 'Rules 1997') & the Resolution and Orders. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of this Writ Petition are that the Government of Orissa in the erstwhile Education and Youth Services Department vide Letter No. 44157-(2) dated 01.10.1989 (Annexure-1), addressed to the Director, Secondary Education and Elementary Education, Orissa communicated its decision that all vacancies in the teaching post in High and Middle (Upper Primary) Schools both Government and Non-Government shall be filled up only with Sikhyakarmis, who will be regularized in due course as teachers. Upon receipt of such communication vide Annexure-1, the Director, Elementary Education, Orissa, instructed all the D.I. of Schools to act as per the aforesaid instructions of the Government. Accordingly, the Opposite Party was appointed vide Order No. 330 dated 17.3.1990 (Annexure-2) issued by the Secretary of-the Managing Committee of Purunabasti Municipal M.E. School, Jharsuguda.The aforesaid appointment of the Opposite Party was approved by Petitioner No. 4-D.I. of Schools, vide Annexure-3 dated 25.05.1991 for a period of one year with effect from 20 03.1990. Subsequently, Petitioner No. 4 vide his Order No. 4813 dated 17.12.1991 (Annexure-4) approved the appointment of the Opposite Party as Sikshyakarmi with effect from 20.3.1991 until further orders. While the Opposite Party was working as such, the School which was an aided School was taken over by the Government by virtue of the Resolution dated 12.5.1992 with effect from 01.4.1991 and, as such, the said School became a new taken-over Government M.E. School. Thereafter, the Government by Order No. 410 dated 3.1.1996 (Anexure-5) abolished the Scheme of Sikshyakarmi. By Order No. 33380/SME dated 18.10.1996 (Annexure-6) the Government instructed that all categories of Sikshyakarmis deemed to be retrenched with effect from 03.01.1996. Thereafter, the Government by Order No. 410 dated 3.1.1996 (Anexure-5) abolished the Scheme of Sikshyakarmi. By Order No. 33380/SME dated 18.10.1996 (Annexure-6) the Government instructed that all categories of Sikshyakarmis deemed to be retrenched with effect from 03.01.1996. In the year 1994, the Opposite Party filed O.A. No. 2129 of 1994 (subsequently renumbered as O.A. No. 82(S) of 1994) before the Tribunal for regularization of her services against regular vacancy on the ground that she the had been continuing since 1990 and similarly situated persons had been regularized against the posts of Primary School Teachers. The Tribunal vide its Order Dated 24.2.2003, allowed the Original Application with above direction to the Opposite Party. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the School & Mass Education vehemently argued that the Tribunal has committed a grave error of law in directing regularization of appointment of the Opposite Party without taking into consideration the policy decision of the Government not to fill up the vacancy of Primary Teacher, on regular basis, with effect from 03.10.2000. The Opposite Party having not challenged the termination of her engagement as Sikhyakarmi with effect from 3.1.1996, the question of regularization of her appointment does not arise. The Tribunal has not considered the Scheme contained in the Resolution dated 3.10.2000 in its proper perspective. The appointment of the Opposite Party as Sikhyakarmi was on annual basis and the Government by Order No. 410 dated 3.1.1996 abolished the Scheme of Sikhyakarmi, & by Order Dated 10.8.1996 instructed that all categories of Sikhyakarmi, shall be deemed to be retrenched with effect from 3.1.1996. The appointment of such Primary School Teachers has already been ceased with effect from 03.10.2000. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. 4. Mr. K.K. Swain, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party raised preliminary issue challenging maintainability of the Writ Petition filed in this Court on 23.2.2007 against the order of the Tribunal dated 24.2.2003 on the ground of delay and laches. He contended that remedy of the Writ Court is only available to a litigant who approaches the Court with sufficient promptitude. Stale claims are not to be entertained by a Writ Court. In support of his contention, he relied ona decision of this Court in Management of Regional Plant Resources Centre Vs. He contended that remedy of the Writ Court is only available to a litigant who approaches the Court with sufficient promptitude. Stale claims are not to be entertained by a Writ Court. In support of his contention, he relied ona decision of this Court in Management of Regional Plant Resources Centre Vs. Workmen of Regional Plant Resources Centre and Another. It is further contended that the Opposite Party is a B.A, C.T. and was appointed as Sikhyakarmi through an interview conducted by the District Selection Committee against the resignation vacancy in Municipal M.E. School, as per the Order Dated 17.3.1990 issued by the Secretary, Managing Committee of the School. The said appointment was made in pursuance of the Government Order dated 12.10.1989, according to which, the vacancies in teaching posts in High School and U.P. Schools both Government and non-Government shall be filled up by Sikhyakarmis who would be regularized in due course as teachers & will be receiving remuneration of Rs. 400 per month during the first two years of engagement and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 600 per month till completion of four years of such engagement. The School was taken over by the Government since 1.4.1991. The appointment of the Opposite Party which was approved for one year initially with effect from 20.3.1990 was subsequently extended until further orders vide Memo No. 4813 dated 17.12.1991. Although the Opposite Party continued there as Sikhyakarmi, she was not regularized in the post of Primary School Teacher like her counterparts and juniors in spite of her representation under Annexure-9 dated 6.9.1993. It was further contended that since the Opposite Party was continuing as Sikhyakarmi, she was entitled to be regularized in the post of Primary School Teacher even if the scheme was abolished with effect from 3.1.1996. 5. Before the Tribunal the Opposite Party filed a certificate dated 8.1.2002 issued by the Respondent No. 4 certifying that the applicant had been working as Sikhyakarmi and paid remuneration at the rate of Rs. 600 per month regularly. On the basis of the averments made in the O.A. as well as in the said certificate, the Tribunal held that the applicant continued to work as Sikhyakarmi teacher from the date of her joining i.e. 20,3.1990 till the date of filing of the O.A and also during its pendency. 600 per month regularly. On the basis of the averments made in the O.A. as well as in the said certificate, the Tribunal held that the applicant continued to work as Sikhyakarmi teacher from the date of her joining i.e. 20,3.1990 till the date of filing of the O.A and also during its pendency. The Resolution dated 3.8.1989 introducing the Sikhykarmi Scheme reveals that there was a commitment on the part of the Government to give regular appointment to Sikhyakarmis against the vacancy of Primary School Teachers and to give them priority m such recruitment. Such intention of the Government was made clear by Resolution No. 410 dated 3.1.1996 by which Sikhyakarmi Scheme was abolished. Communication No. 7385 dated 12.3.1996 also reveals that consequent upon abolition of the Scheme, the Government have decided that Sikhyakarmis who were eligible should be absorbed as Primary School Teachers against the available vacancies. It is not in dispute that the Opposite Party had possessed the required qualification by the date of her appointment as Sikhyakarmi. The qualification required for appointment to the posts of Primary School Teachers was that a candidate should be a Matriculate and should have successfully completed the C.T Course. In the present case, the Opposite Party is a B.A., C.T. The Opposite Party having requisite qualification and had uninterruptedly continued as Sikhyakarmi for more than four years by the date the Scheme was abolished and thereafter, cannot be deprived of her right to be appointed as Primary School teacher for no fault of her. On 6.9.1993, the Opposite Party made a representation to regularize her services in the post of Primary School Teacher like her counterparts and juniors, but her services were not regularized. 6. Preliminary objection raised by Mr. Swain, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party on the ground of delay/laches should be gone into at the outset. 7. The question of delay in filing the Writ Petition has been considered by the Apex Court in Smt. Sudama Devi Vs. Commissioner and Others. wherein it has been observed as under: There is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the ConstiJution. It is in fact doubtful whether any such period of limitation can be prescribed by law. Commissioner and Others. wherein it has been observed as under: There is no period of limitation prescribed by any law for filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the ConstiJution. It is in fact doubtful whether any such period of limitation can be prescribed by law. In any event one thing is clear and beyond doubt that no such period of limitation can be laid down either under rules made by the High Court or by practice. In every case it would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances whether the Petitioner is guilty of laches and that would have to be done without taking into account any specific period as a period of limitation. There may be cases where even short delay may be fatal while there may be cases where even a long delay may not be evidence of laches on the part of the Petitioner. In State of M.P. and Others Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ...High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a Writ Petition filed after unreasonable delay it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.... In M.S. Mudhol and Another Vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Management of an aided Private Higher Secondary School appointed a person having M.A. Third Division and M.Ed. In M.S. Mudhol and Another Vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Management of an aided Private Higher Secondary School appointed a person having M.A. Third Division and M.Ed. Second Division, as Principal with the approval of the Director, Education. After He completed nine years service, his appointment was challenged in a writ petition for quo warranto, on the ground, t lat he did not pass M.A. Second Division and as such, he was not qualified as M.Ed. which is not equivalent to M.A. degree. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground of long delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner. In Kuldip Chand Vs. Union of India and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inordinate delay or laches is by itself a ground to refuse relief to the Petitioner, irrespective of the merit of his claim. If a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of like others that he is not interested in claiming that relief. Others are then justified in acting on that belief. Similarly, in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Raj Bahadur Singh and Another, of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no time limit for filing Writ Petition. All that the Court has to see is whether the laches on the part of the Petitioner are such as to disentitle him to the relief claimed by him. This Court in Management of Regional Plant Resources Centre Vs. Workmen of Regional Plant Resources Centre and Another held that remedy of the writ Court is only available to a litigant who approaches the Court with sufficient promptitude. Stale claims are not to be entertained by a Writ Court. 8. Needless to say that inordinate delay or laches is by itself a ground to refuse relief to the Petitioners irrespective of merit of their claims. Delay or laches is one of the factors, which should be borne in mind while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, of India. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled propositions of law, we have to examine the case of the Petitioners. The Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition on 20.2.2007 challenging the validity and legality of the Order Dated 24.2.2003 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 82(S) of 1994. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled propositions of law, we have to examine the case of the Petitioners. The Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition on 20.2.2007 challenging the validity and legality of the Order Dated 24.2.2003 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 82(S) of 1994. Thus, the petitioners approached this Court after a lapse of about four years from the date of passing of the impugned order. No explanation whatsoever has been given in the petition about the inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioners in presenting the Writ Petition, which amounts to sheer laches on the part of the Petitioners. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The Writ Petition being not maintainable on the preliminary ground of delay & laches, the other issues involved need no adjudication, which may lead to mere academic exercise. 10. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. L. Mohapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed