1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of private respondent Nos. 5 and 6, as Para Teachers/EGS Guides, in village Lower Dharana, teshil Mendhar, district Poonch. 2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to notification dt. 10th of July' 03, issued by the official respondents, the petitioner along with other eligible candi dates submitted his application for consideration for appointment against the post of Para Teacher/EGS Guide. 3. Pursuant to the receipt of applications, the Zonal Education Officer, Mendhar, prepared a merit panel of 54 candidates wherein the name of the peti tioner figured at SI.No.20. 4. Counsel for the petitioner urged that even when the petitioner was more qualified and meritorious than the private respondents, who are possessed of 10+2 qualification only, and were inferior in merit, the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment and the said private respondents were appointed illegally. To buttress the case of the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner referred to a report submitted by the Zonal Education Officer, Mendhar, to the Chief Education Officer, Poonch, dated 14th of Oct'08, in which report the Zonal Education Officer, has reported that the candidates were engaged as ReT/Para Teachers/EGS in Session 2004-05, ignoring the better claim of the petitioner, who was having Bachelor's Degree in Science. Reference has also been drawn to a letter No. CEO/P/2875-76 dated Nil Nov'08, whereby the Chief Education Officer, Poonch, has forwarded the report to the State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, for necessary action. 5. From the records, it appears that the petitioner was, in fact, more meritorious than the selected candidates i.e. private respondents 5 and 6. Yet the issue is whether for an appointment made in regard to private respondents 5 and 6 for the session 2004-05, this court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction despite there being considerable delay in filing the present writ petition. 6. In Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598 , the Apex Court held as under:- "The rule which says that the Court may not enquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts.
Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598 , the Apex Court held as under:- "The rule which says that the Court may not enquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. It will all depend upon what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how delay arose. The principle on which the relief to the party on the grounds of laches or delay is denied is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner should come to the writ court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or negligence. The test is not as to physical running of time. Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches." 7. In Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and others, (1975) 4 SCC 714 , the Apex court in paragraph 16 of the judgment, has held as under:- "..................If a petitioner has been so remiss or negligent as to approach the Court for relief after an inordinate and unexplained delay, he certainly jeopardizes his claims as it may become inequitable, with circumstances altered by lapse of time and other facts, to enforce a fundamental right to the detriment of the similar claims of innocent third persons." 8. The Apex Court, yet in another case reported as Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar and others, (2011) 5 SCC 607 , in paragraph 54 of the judgment, laid down as under:- "The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled.
They are: (1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. (2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4; No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall havej» be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay." 9. A reference to the writ petition filed by the petitioner, however, would show that no effort has at all been made by the petitioner to explain the inordinate delay w.e.f. the date of engagement of private respondents in the year 2004-05, till the filing of writ petition. Even after having approached the official respondents and having obtained the requisite reports in his favour in 2008, petitioner again chose to lie low till 2010, when finally he decided to file the present petition. In the process, the private respondents, who were engaged in the Session 2004-05, continued to work as such. 10. The inordinate delay on account of in-decision of the petitioner to approach this court, well in time, will result in prejudice to the innocent third parties-trie respondents 5 and 6, who have continued in engagement now for more then eight years.
In the process, the private respondents, who were engaged in the Session 2004-05, continued to work as such. 10. The inordinate delay on account of in-decision of the petitioner to approach this court, well in time, will result in prejudice to the innocent third parties-trie respondents 5 and 6, who have continued in engagement now for more then eight years. It will be highly inequitable at this belated stage, to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this court, which will cause prejudice to the interests of private respondents 5 and 6, who by afflux of time, have rights emerging in their favour to continue to be working against the posts on which they have been appointed. 11. It is a well settled principle of law that writ jurisdiction being discretionary in nature, can be refused to be exercised if there is negligence or omission on the part of petitioner to assert his rights. 1.2. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition being hit by the principles of delay and laches is, accordingly, dismissed.