ORDER 1. Having not been selected on the post of Assistant Grade III in the Special Recruitment Drive in 1998, petitioner has filed this petition in the year 2012 seeking direction to consider the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Grade-III on the ground, that having being engaged in the year 1983 and possessing requisite qualification he was ignored in the year 1998 and his junior Maniram Deharia has been appointed. 2. In the considered opinion of this Court it is too late for the petitioner to raise a grievance in respect of the promotions/appointments made in the year 1998. As it has been held that an equitable relief can be denied on the ground of laches. 3. Further, in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 wherein it has been held - "53. Needless to say that Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in writ jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and laches... “54 This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See Rup Diamonds v. Union of India [ (1989)2 SCC 356 ], State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotraya [ (1996) 6 SCC 267 and Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (1997) 6 SCC 538 .” 4. Trite it is that delay and laches on the part of person disentitle him to seek remedy in the Court of law. Division Bench of this Court in Focus Energy Ltd. (M/s) v. Government of India, (DB) I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 53; relying upon judgments of the apex Court observed - “10. Thus, facts stated supra leads to irresistible conclusion that appellant is guilty of delay and laches. Its conduct disentitles it to any relief. Division Bench of this Court in Focus Energy Ltd. (M/s) v. Government of India, (DB) I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 53; relying upon judgments of the apex Court observed - “10. Thus, facts stated supra leads to irresistible conclusion that appellant is guilty of delay and laches. Its conduct disentitles it to any relief. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, AIR 2007 SC 1365 the Supreme Court has held that delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48 the Supreme Court has observed that discretionary relief can be provided to one who has not by his act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant. In the State of Haryana v. Aravali Khanij Udyog, (2008) 1 SCC 663 it has been held that where third party rights are created, the High Court should not interfere. Similarly, in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) it has been held that the Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third parties crystallizes in the interregnum.” 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner seeks redressal of grievance regarding superannuation in the year 1998 and the principle of law laid down in the case of Mamta Mohanty (supra) and Focus Energy (supra), no relief can be granted.