JUDGMENT : This writ petition filed by seven petitioners is about regularisation of their services against the posts of Assistant Teachers of L.P. Schools of Assam. The petitioners belong to Nalbari District of Assam. 2. The case of the petitioners is that an advertisement was issued on 28-12-1996 inviting applications from interested candidates for filling up the posts of Assistant Teachers for L.P. Schools under the Department of Elementary Education, Assam: they duly applied for the posts. In terms of the letter dated 8-3-2001 of the State Government, a total number of 7066 posts was said to have been created, out of which 436 posts were allotted for L.P. Schools while 2690 posts were earmarked for M.E. Schools. The petitioners claim that 350 posts were thus allotted for regularization of the service of 350 L.P. School Teachers and that they were interviewed by a duly constituted Interview Board whereafter they were merit-wise placed in Serial No. 1 to 7 of the list. They were thereafter appointed as Assistant Teachers by the concerned Deputy Inspector of Schools for different L.P. Schools under his jurisdiction in a fixed pay of Rs.1,800/- per month against the validly created posts and were allotted to these schools by the Government. It is said that all the appointments were initially made on 16-3-2001 on temporary basis but their services were utilized by the respondent authorities from time to time without any break. The concerned Deputy Inspector of Schools had submitted on 16-7-2003 a report to the respondent No. 2 categorically stating therein that 280 selected candidates had been appointed against 280 one year sanctioned posts as per the select list submitted by the Advisory Board and that the list of 15 teachers for Barkhetri Constituency consisted of the names of the petitioners. However, due to the allegations of anomalies in the appointment of OBB teachers, the Governor of Assam constituted a Committee to make inquiry for identifying those genuine teachers who were appointed in March, 2001 under the O.B.B. Scheme against 280 posts of L.P. Schools of Nalbari District vide the order dated 11-3-2010 issued by the Under Secretary, Education, Assam. Though the Committee was to submit the authenticated report to the Government within 31st May, 2010, but no positive action has been taken by the Government for regular appointment of the genuinely appointed O.B.B. Teachers. Though the Committee was to submit the authenticated report to the Government within 31st May, 2010, but no positive action has been taken by the Government for regular appointment of the genuinely appointed O.B.B. Teachers. On the retirement of the then Chairman of the Committee, the Government re-constituted an Inquiry Committee vide the order dated 11-8-2010. During the proceeding of the earlier Committee held on 6-1-2010, according to the petitioners, the Committee found that in respect of Barkhetri Constituency, out of 67 teachers of the approved list, only 26 appointment letters were available as communicated by the then Chairman vide his letter dated 15-2-2010. As all the petitioners were duly selected, and their names were listed as duly appointed against one year O.B.B. sanctioned posts in terms of the Inquiry Report submitted by the D.I. of Schools to the respondent No. 2, they are entitled to regularization of their services. The petitioners further submit that in view of the order dated 12-12-2007 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 8299/04, the respondent authorities have taken action for regularisation of the duly appointed O.B.B. Teachers, who were appointed in the year 2001. However, the petitioners are apprehending that their services may not be regularised as they were not parties to WP(C) No. 8299/04 even though they are similarly situated with the petitioners therein, who were also appointed in the year 2001 under the O.B.B. Scheme. The petitioners are now claiming similar direction in this writ petition. These are the sum and substance of the case of the petitioners. 3. The writ petition is opposed by the State respondents, who have filed their counter-affidavit through the respondent No. 1. It is the case of the answering respondent that the appointments of the petitioners were made in gross violation of the established procedure for making appointments and were in excess of the available vacancies. Due to large-scale illegal appointments, it is virtually impossible for the respondent authorities to identify the genuinely selected candidates. In fact, in Nalbari district alone, as against the available 266 vacancies for L.P. Schools, 4,510 appointments were made by the then District Elementary Education Officer of the district, who also appointed 419 candidates against the vacant posts of L.P. Schools. Due to large-scale illegal appointments, it is virtually impossible for the respondent authorities to identify the genuinely selected candidates. In fact, in Nalbari district alone, as against the available 266 vacancies for L.P. Schools, 4,510 appointments were made by the then District Elementary Education Officer of the district, who also appointed 419 candidates against the vacant posts of L.P. Schools. According to the answering respondent, as it was not physically possible to determine as to who is an illegal appointee or not in the Nalbari district, the Government issued the order dated 4-7-2001 directing the respondent No. 2 to cancel all those illegal appointments. The respondent No. 2 accordingly issued the order dated 19-7-2001 directing the DEEO, Nalbari district to cancel all the appointments made by then incumbent, namely, Sri A.C. Choudhury, DEEO, Nalbari. This resulted in cancelling the appointments of all those teachers appointed under the 7066 OBB Scheme in the month of March, 2001 in the month of July, 2001. As they approached this Court for regularization of their services and payment of salaries after a delay of 9 years without satisfactory explanation, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 4. Some of the aggrieved teachers whose services were terminated by the orders dated 19-7-2001 and 21-7-2001 had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 6469/2001, but the writ petition was disposed of by directing the State-respondents to initiate an enquiry in order to determine the genuineness of the select list. Thereafter, Magisterial enquiry was conducted whereafter the report of the enquiry was submitted. The State-respondents also constituted the Enquiry Committee to study the matter, and the Committee prima facie found that vital documents such as the select list, the appointment letters, issue registers, the meeting proceeding books of the Selection Board and files dealing with the appointment of teachers to the posts allotted under the scheme of OBB (7066) in March, 2001 were not found in perfect order. The State-respondents again, in compliance with the judgment and order dated 12-12-2007 passed in WP(C) No. 8299/2004 (Md. Saher Ali & ors vs. State of Assam & ors), re-constituted an enquiry committee under the Chairmanship of answering respondent to verify the genuineness of the appointments made in March, 2001 under OBB (7066) Scheme in Nalbari by the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari on 4-8-2010. On verification, the Enquiry Committee found such appointments to be doubtful. Saher Ali & ors vs. State of Assam & ors), re-constituted an enquiry committee under the Chairmanship of answering respondent to verify the genuineness of the appointments made in March, 2001 under OBB (7066) Scheme in Nalbari by the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari on 4-8-2010. On verification, the Enquiry Committee found such appointments to be doubtful. After cancellation of these appointment orders and the subsequent termination, some similarly situated LP School Teachers of Nalbari District had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 4560/2008 (Pabitra Barman and ors. v. State of Assam) seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to work as Assistant Teachers and for payment of salaries. This Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the services of the petitioners had been terminated way back in 2001. This Court also dismissed another similar writ petition being WP(C) No. 5541/2010 (Pratap Kalita & ors. v. State of Assam) vide the order dated 4-10-2010 in terms of the aforesaid order dated 21-11-2008. Similarly situated teachers who were appointed as M.E. school teachers in the year 2001 in respect of Nalbari district had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 6241/11 (Kamal Chandra Das & ors. v. State of Assam & ors) challenging their terminations dated 19-7-2001 and 21-7-2001 as well as the Enquiry Report dated 13-8-2010, but this Court dismissed the writ petition on 20-5-2014. These are the sum and substance of the case of the respondent authorities. 5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and on perusing the pleadings of the parties, I have no doubt in my mind that this writ petition suffers from gross laches. If any authority is needed, I may conveniently refer to the decision of the Apex Court in S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 , which are in the following terms:- “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 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, (2007) 9 SCC 278 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. 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.” 6. 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.” 6. In the instant case, though the petitioners claim regularization of their services, the stance taken by the respondent authorities in their affidavit filed on 3-8-2015 is that the appointments of teachers under the 7066 OBB Scheme are illegal being made without the approval of the higher authorities and beyond the available vacancies; that the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari enquired into the matter and, seized the original documents on 24-4-2001, submitted his report on 11-6-2001, but as it was not physically possible to identify as to who were the genuine appointees or who were not among the large-scale appointments under the said Scheme during that period, necessary directions had to be issued to the answering respondents for mass cancellation of such appointments, which was done in the month of July, 2001. According to the answering respondents, some of the terminated teachers had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 6469/01, which, as already noticed, resulted in the constitution of enquiry committee by the State-respondents to verify the genuineness of such appointments made in March, 2001 under the OBB Scheme. No reply-affidavit is filed by the petitioners to challenge these averments made by the respondents in their counter. If the appointments of the petitioners had been cancelled in 2001 as claimed by the respondent authorities and if there is no evidence to show that they had been reinstated to their services in the meantime, the question of regularization of their services will not and cannot arise: to seek such a relief will amount to putting the cart before the horse. Assuming that some of the terminated teachers have obtained some favourable orders from this Court also, the petitioners are guilty of laches for sitting idly for 9 long years. No satisfactory explanation is offered by them for the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition after 9 years. They were filing this writ petition only after other petitioners succeed. They were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and shoes to sit on the fence till somebody else case came to be decided. No satisfactory explanation is offered by them for the inordinate delay in filing this writ petition after 9 years. They were filing this writ petition only after other petitioners succeed. They were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and shoes to sit on the fence till somebody else case came to be decided. Their case cannot be considered on the analogy of one where a law had declared unconstitutional and void by a court so as to enable persons to recover money paid under the compulsion of the law declared void. - See Rup Diamond v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 356 . 7. For what has been stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. However, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.