JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. I.A. No. 6515 of 2022 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 14 days in preferring the instant L.P.A. 2. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the interlocutory application and having no objection on the part of the Respondent State, the delay of 14 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 6515 of 2022, stands allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 260 of 2022 4. The appeal is under Clause(X) of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5850 of 2009, whereby and where under the prayer for a direction upon the respondents to compensate the writ petitioner due to the alleged laches committed on the part of the respondents in not appointing the writ petitioner, has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. 5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the application is required to be enumerated, reads as under: The writ petition had been filed for the following reliefs: (i) “For issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the light of Annexure-16, by which it was amply clear that the petitioner was successful in the written examination if his answer book was duly corrected, (ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondent-authorities to show cause as to why they had filed false affidavit in W.P. (S) No. 6111 of 2005 wherein they have expressly mentioned that the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the written examination contrary to the fact that the answer book of the petitioner was not corrected properly and the perusal of the same shows that the petitioner would have been successful if his answer book was duly corrected.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument had submitted that no appointment can be made so far as petitioner is concerned considering his date of birth and submitted that the petitioner was entitled for compensation from the respondents as the petitioner had suffered due to wrong committed by the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument had submitted that no appointment can be made so far as petitioner is concerned considering his date of birth and submitted that the petitioner was entitled for compensation from the respondents as the petitioner had suffered due to wrong committed by the respondents. 7. The learned counsel had relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 to submit that the petitioner was entitled for compensation as the petitioner had suffered on account of illegality committed by the respondents in the matter of marking the answer sheets of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel had submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved before this court in W.P. (S) No. 6111 of 2005 which was also subject matter of appeal in L.P.A. No. 45 of 2006. He referred to the order dated 15.12.2005 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6111 of 2005 to submit that it had been recorded that the petitioner did not succeed in the written test and therefore was not declared successful in the result published in the newspaper and that the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right and consequently the writ petition was dismissed. The appeal being L.P.A. No. 45 of 2006 was also dismissed vide order dated 29.06.2006 wherein the argument of the petitioner that there was certain error of record was also rejected. 9. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner has obtained certain information under Right to Information Act whereby a copy of the answer sheets of the petitioner has been handed over to the petitioner and from perusal of the answer sheets learned counsel submitted that the marking had not been properly done/calculated. He submitted that had the marking been properly done then the petitioner would have been selected and on account of such error in marking of the answer sheets of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and he is required to be duly compensated. 10. It appears from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner has made application for consideration of his candidature for the post of Constable under the Home Guard Category. 10. It appears from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner has made application for consideration of his candidature for the post of Constable under the Home Guard Category. According, to the writ petitioner even though he has been declared to be successful in the recruitment process but he has not been appointed, hence, he came to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005 but the said writ petition was dismissed. The writ petitioner has filed intra-court appeal in L.P.A. No. 45 of 2006. But the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court has declined to interfere in the order passed by the Coordinate learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005. 11. The writ petitioner subsequent thereto has got information under the Right to Information Act where from the writ petitioner came to know that he had obtained the marks at par with the successful candidates but even then have not been successful under the Home Guard Category. But the respondents have not considered the candidature of the writ petitioner. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in the meanwhile he became over aged and at the age of 50 years he again approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.(S) 5850 of 2009 for seeking a direction from this Court to compensate him due to the laches committed on the part of the State authority but the learned Single Judge has refused to pass positive direction, against which the present appeal. 12. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that there is gross laches on the part of the State in not selecting the petitioner under the Home Guard Category as Constable, since, the points of the Home Guard Category has not been added while preparing the merit list which is an error in the addition of the marks as is being claimed on behalf of the appellant. 13. The contention has been made that if that marks would have been added then the writ petitioner would have been appointed the day when the result was published. But the respondents in a highly arbitrary manner have not added the said marks in consequence thereof the writ petitioner has been shown to be not in the list of the successful candidates under the Home Guard Category. But the respondents in a highly arbitrary manner have not added the said marks in consequence thereof the writ petitioner has been shown to be not in the list of the successful candidates under the Home Guard Category. However, the fact about non-addition of marks of the Home Guard Category in the aggregate marks if had been obtained as per the recruitment process into the knowledge of the writ petitioner when the information was supplied under the Right to Information Act. The writ petitioner only then came to know that the marks under the Home Guard Category had not been added while making aggregate marks which was the basis of preparation of the merit list. 14. The contention has been made that it is the gross laches committed on the part of the State Authority and hence, the writ petition has been filed to compensate the writ petitioner. Since, the writ petitioner in the meanwhile has crossed the maximum age and in that view of the matter the writ petitioner has been made to suffer irreparable loss. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated these facts in right perspective and hence the instant appeal. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted by defending the impugned order. The ground has been taken that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005 which has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 45 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment under the Home Guard Category as Constable has been declined to be ordered. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has come to the conclusive finding that the aforesaid order binds the writ petitioner and hence the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that it is not the case for grant of any compensation. 16. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge has also given its finding by distinguishing the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nilabati Behera versus State of Orissa and others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 on fact. 17. The learned State counsel on the basis of the aforesaid submission has submitted that the impugned order suffers from no error. 18. 17. The learned State counsel on the basis of the aforesaid submission has submitted that the impugned order suffers from no error. 18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 19. The admitted fact herein is that the writ petitioner had applied for consideration of his candidature for appointment as Constable under the Home Guard Category in pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 2004. The writ petitioner having not been declared to be qualified, since, his name does not find mentioned in the list of the successful candidate, hence, he has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005. The coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to pass positive direction by assigning the reason therein that the petitioner since had not succeeded in the written test and therefore, he has not been declared successful in the result published in the newspaper. The consideration, therefore, was given by this Court while passing the order in W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005 that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to be appointed on the post of Constable and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. The aforesaid order dated 15.12.2005 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005 has been appended as Annexure-11 to the paper book. 20. It appears that the said order was carried to the Intra-Court appeal by filing L.P.A. being L.P.A. No. 45 of 2006. But a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.06.2006 has declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005. 21. The writ petitioner thereafter, claims to have the information under Right to Information Act, 2005. He on the basis of such information came to know that the marks of Home Guard Category had not been added while preparing the merit list. The writ petitioner on that pretext and after assessing that if that marks would have been added in the aggregate then he would have been appointed. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner gross laches has been committed on the part of the State, the recruiting agency. The writ petitioner on that pretext and after assessing that if that marks would have been added in the aggregate then he would have been appointed. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner gross laches has been committed on the part of the State, the recruiting agency. Hence, another writ petition was filed in the year 2009 being W.P.(S) No. 5850 of 2009 seeking therein a direction of compensation to be paid by the State in favour of the writ petitioner. Such prayer has been made in the backdrop of the fact that the writ petitioner due to the aforesaid laches has crossed the maximum age and hence the loss which was sustained has been considered by the writ petitioner to be irreparable. 22. The learned Single Judge has refused to pass positive direction by taking note of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005 and L.P.A. No. 45 of 2006, dismissed the writ petition, hence, the present appeal. 23. The law is well settled that the amount of compensation directed to be paid, the attributability has to be assessed that on whose fault a party has suffered. The compensation can be awarded if there is absolute laches on the part of the party and if the loss sustained is rendered to be irreparable. 24. We are proceeding to examine the factual aspect coupled with the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 25. Here the claim of the writ petitioner is that after getting information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 he came to know that the marks of the Home Guard Category had not been added in the aggregate marks which was the basis of preparation of the merit list. The aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the writ petitioner after supply of the information under Right to Information Act, 2005. The question here arises that when the writ petitioner was conscious that the writ petition is a summary proceeding where the final outcome depends upon the statement supported by the document. The writ petitioner was also conscious about the fact that there is already a statutory provision for getting the information after coming into effect of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The writ petitioner has come to this Court for seeking a direction for appointment by filing writ petition in the year 2005 being W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005. The writ petitioner was also conscious about the fact that there is already a statutory provision for getting the information after coming into effect of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The writ petitioner has come to this Court for seeking a direction for appointment by filing writ petition in the year 2005 being W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005. But it appears from the pleading of the writ petition herein and the argument which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner that the fact which subsequently came within the knowledge of the writ petitioner in the year 2009 had not been tried to be procured by making an application under Right to Information Act, 2005. The coordinate learned Single Judge while passing the order in W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005, therefore, has dismissed the writ petition by taking into consideration the stand of the State wherein the plea was taken that the writ petitioner had not been declared to be successful. The coordinate learned Single Judge based upon the aforesaid plea of the State has passed the order while dismissing the writ petition that the appointment cannot be kept as a matter of right. The said order has been affirmed by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.06.2006 passed in L.P.A. No. 45 of 2006. The writ petitioner if would have come to this Court by getting the proper information under Right to Information Act, 2005, the matter would have been different. It is not that the day when the writ petition was filed there was no existence of Right to Information Act, 2005. 26. It further appears that the learned Single Judge while coming to the conclusion has also taken note of the policy decision of the State which has been issued by notification dated 12.11.2001 wherein as per paragraph-12, that the benefit of the Home Guard training is only to be given to the Home Guards who have been registered in the State of Jharkhand. 27. It is thus evident that in that view of the matter also the writ petitioner has got no claim for being considered for appointment even if the case of the writ petitioner is taken into consideration. 28. 27. It is thus evident that in that view of the matter also the writ petitioner has got no claim for being considered for appointment even if the case of the writ petitioner is taken into consideration. 28. Therefore, we are of the view that it is not that even though laches lie on the part of the State as is being claimed, but it cannot be said that the writ petitioner was very much vigilant about his right to invoke the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the basic principle to maintain a writ petition is the documents and the statements, basis upon which the writ petition is to be decided subject to the objection of the other side. Same is if compensation is to be paid if a party is able to show that no laches lies on his part. But we are not finding anything for coming to the conclusion that there was no laches on the part of the writ petitioner. 29. The learned Single Judge has considered the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6111 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the claim of the writ petitioner has been dismissed as also has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 45 of 2006, which having been considered to be binding upon the writ petitioner, hence, declines from issuing any direction for payment of compensation in favour of the writ petitioner. This Court based upon the aforesaid reason is of the view that while doing so the learned Single Judge has committed no error. 30. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed.