JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) In this writ petition filed by the erstwhile Supervisor of Non-formal education project under the Directorate of Non-Formal and Adult Education, numbering 47 of them, they are claiming adjustments/appointments/regularizations or absorption as L.P. or M.E. School Teachers. 2. The facts material for disposal of the case are not in dispute. All the petitioners have passed Higher Secondary Examinations and, in fact, some of them are graduates. As all of them have crossed 38 years of age, they are no longer qualified to apply for employment under the Government. In the year 1992, the Director of Non-Formal and Adult Education, Assam appointed the petitioners as Supervisors under the Non-Formal Education Project at the fixed remuneration of Rs.400/- per month against each Non-Formal Education Centre for a period of 2 years or till completion of the ongoing phase of non-formal education programme, whichever was earlier and posted them at different non-formal education centres all over the State. Their fixed remuneration was subsequently enhanced to Rs.800/- per month. Though they were initially appointed for a period of two years, their services came to be extended from time to time till 2001 when the respondent authorities stopped further extension of their services. 3. It would appear that when the services of the petitioners and other Supervisors were discontinued, some of their colleagues in their individual capacity or in a representative capacity approached this Court by filing a bunch of writ petitions such as WP(C) No. 4294/01, WP(C) No. 452/01 and WP(C) No. 8648/05, and this Court by the order dated 4-4-2005 and other analogous orders in other writ petitions directed the respondent authorities to consider their cases for regularization/absorption/adjustment, etc. of their posts at various levels of services like teaching, non-teaching, etc. considering their long standing services, age, etc. These petitioners have apparently succeeded in the reliefs claimed by them the State-respondents in compliance with the order of this Court by adopting the policy of pick and choose. The grievance of the petitioners is that no such reliefs are given to them by the State-respondents though they are admittedly similarly situated. They are now claiming similar reliefs in this writ petition. 4. After hearing Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. N. Sarma, the learning standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Assam and Mr. They are now claiming similar reliefs in this writ petition. 4. After hearing Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. N. Sarma, the learning standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Assam and Mr. G. Goswamy, the learned standing counsel for SSA, I am of the view that this writ petition suffers from gross laches. It must be noted that the petitioners never joined the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 4294 of 2001 and others or filed a separate writ petition to ventilate the same grievances. It is only after some 13 years or so that they approached this Court, that too, after 8 years of obtaining relief by those petitioners. They are fence-sitters and are set to take advantage of the fruit of litigations pursued by alert and vigilant litigants, who had the sense to approach this Court in time. This reminds me of the decision of the Apex Court in S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 . This is what it said: “17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”. The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. In NDMC v. Pan Singh this Court held: (SCC p. 283, para 16) “16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction.” (See also Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn., (2009) 1 SCC 297 : (2008) 15 Scale 67 at SCC p. 302, para 17.) 5. Need I say more? This writ petition, therefore, suffers from laches and will be against equity to entertain it. The writ petition is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed, but by directing the parties to bear their respective costs.