ORDER : This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the appointment order dated 13.8.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4/Superintending Engineer, PWD, Ambikapur Division in respect of respondent No.5 who secured less marks in comparison to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.9.2013 (Annexure P/2) published by Public Works Department, Ambikapur Division for various posts such as Field Assistant, Peon, Gardener, Telephone Attendant, the petitioner submitted his application form for the post of Field Assistant vide Annexure P/3. In the merit list prepared by the respondent authorities, the name of respondent No.5 found place at Sl.No.3 and the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sl.No.8 as the merit list was prepared only on the basis of marks obtained in maths subject whereas it was to be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained in Class-12th examination. Hence, the petitioner moved an application in this regard before the Collector, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja but it was of no avail. On 13.8.2015 impugned appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No.5 vide Annexure P/1. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted an application before the Collector, Distt. Surguja for making an inquiry into the matter of appointment of respondent No.5 as the same has been done contrary to the rules and terms and conditions of the advertisement but nothing has been done on his application. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned appointment order dated 13.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent No.4 Superintending Engineer PWD Ambikapur Division, Ambikapur, in respect of respondent no.5. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment in the post of field Assistant on the basis of merits and marks obtained in 12th class. 3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 3. 3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned appointment order dated 13.8.2015 is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government for direct recruitment and also contrary to the advertisement issued by the Public Works Department, Ambikapur. There is no such condition in the advertisement that preference will be given to those candidates who got higher marks in a particular subject i.e. Mathematics and the only requirement was that the candidates should have passed Higher Secondary Examination in Maths group. The petitioner’s percentage in Class-12th is higher than the percentage obtained by respondent No.5 in Class-12th and as such, the petitioner ought to have been appointed on the post of Field Assistant. Though after publication of the merit list, the petitioner had moved application before the Collector against the irregularities being committed by the respondent authorities but no action was taken thereon. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of the relief claimed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that instant petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches because the impugned appointment order in favour of respondent No.5 was issued on 13.8.2015 which has been challenged by the petitioner on 22.1.2018 without offering any reasonable explanation for such an inordinate delay. Since respondent No.5 has duly joined the post of Field Assistant within the given time of 15 days and also at the relevant point of time, the petitioner never raised any objection regarding appointment of respondent No.5, after the selection process being over, he cannot raise any claim for his appointment as a matter of right. In the merit list, the petitioner’s name appeared at Sl.No.8 though he secured 72.8% in 10+2 examination whereas the name of respondent No.5 who obtained 72% in the said examination appeared at Sl.No.3. It is submitted that according to the advertisement (Annexure P/2) the essential qualification for appointment on the post of Field Assistant was passing of Higher Secondary Examination or 10+2 examination with maths subject. It is submitted that according to the advertisement (Annexure P/2) the essential qualification for appointment on the post of Field Assistant was passing of Higher Secondary Examination or 10+2 examination with maths subject. The merit list was prepared on the basis of marks obtained in maths subject and not on the basis of overall marks obtained by the candidate. Though respondent No.5 secured 72% in higher secondary examination, however, looking to his total marks obtained in maths subject i.e. 86 marks, his name appeared in the first position under the OBC category. The petitioner was also considered under the OBC category and even though he secured total 72.8%, his name was not considered for the said appointment on account of his marks in maths subject being less i.e. 68 marks. The selection committee duly selected respondent No.5 and on the basis of recommendation made by the selection committee, the impugned appointment order dated 13.8.2015 was issued in favour of respondent No.5 by respondent No.4 which is absolutely legal and justified warranting no interference by this Court. So, this petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the Rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no such time limit in service matters for raising the irregularities or illegalities in the State function and activities. The petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities meanwhile and when no action was taken thereon, he filed the instant petition. Hence the present petition is well within time and looking to the criteria mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure P/2), the impugned appointment order of respondent No.5 being illegal is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the above contention of the petitioner raised in the Rejoinder. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the impugned appointment order of respondent No.5 was issued on 13.8.2015 whereas the present petition was filed on 22.1.2018. The petitioner has not properly explained the inordinate delay of three years in filing this petition. It is also an admitted fact that pursuant to the impugned appointment order, respondent No.5 has joined his services within the stipulated time period. 9. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Aditya Narayan Jaiswal Vs. The petitioner has not properly explained the inordinate delay of three years in filing this petition. It is also an admitted fact that pursuant to the impugned appointment order, respondent No.5 has joined his services within the stipulated time period. 9. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Aditya Narayan Jaiswal Vs. State of CG, WPS No.8013/2011, decided on 16.03.2016, while dealing with the issue of delay and laches in service matters observed in paras 4 & 5 as under : 4. In the matter of S. S. Balu and another v. State of Kerala and others (2009) 2 SCC 479 , the Supreme Court has held that even in cases where similar reliefs have been allowed in favour of other persons, the candidate approaching the Court after substantial length of time is not entitled to succeed on the strength of similar order. 5. The writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The Supreme Court in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held thus:- “15. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal the Court observed that: (SCC p. 594, para 24) “24. ... it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic.” It has been further stated therein that: (Nandlal Jaiswal case, SCC p. 594, para 24) “24. ... If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.” Emphasis was laid on the principle of delay and laches stating that resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction at a belated stage is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in injustice. 16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. 16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 10. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court without offering any satisfactory explanation therefor, in light of the aforesaid decision of this Court, present petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is accordingly dismissed.