ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: a) The action of the recruitment agency/respondent department to treat to petitioners as ineligible on the count that the petitioners are not having the degree of graduation in English optional subject may kindly be declared illegal. b) The petitioners may kindly be declared eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher-Level-2 (English) at the strength of their Graduation with English as compulsory Subject studied in all three years of graduation study course. c) The respondents may kindly be restrained to reject the candidature of petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are not having the qualification of graduation with English subject as optional. d) The respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to petitioners as Assistant Teacher-Level-2 (English) pursuant of advertisement dated 15.01.2023 (Annex-I) with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners possessed a degree of graduation with ‘English’ as a compulsory subject and had studied the said subject in all three years of their graduation. Hence, in terms of the ratio laid down in Naveen Swami & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12186/2023 (decided on 16.10.2023), they should also be held eligible for appointment to the post of ‘Assistant Teacher Level-2 (English)’ and the rejection of their candidature deserves to be declared to be bad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a clear ratio with regard to above issue was laid down in the case of RPSC v. Deepak Bariyal; D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.528/2018 (decided on 07.03.2018) wherein the Division Bench of this Court specifically held that the action of the respondent in insisting for English as optional subject at the graduation level and holding the candidates like the petitioners, who have studied English as compulsory subject at the graduation level to be ineligible, cannot be sustained. 4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Naveen Swami (supra), while relying upon Division Bench judgment in the case of Deepak Bariya (supra) allowed the writ petition while directing to consider the candidature of the petitioners therein treating them to be eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher (Level II) English on the strength of their graduation with English as compulsory subject. 5. 5. Counsel submits that Naveen Swami (supra) was a matter pertaining to the same recruitment in question and hence, the petitioners also being on a similar footing deserve to be granted the same relief. He submits that even otherwise more than 600 posts qua the recruitment in question are lying vacant as of date and no fresh recruitment process has been initiated by the respondent-Department therefore also the petitioners deserve to be granted the relief. 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Department raised an objection regarding the grant of relief at a highly belated stage. Counsel submits that the final selection list for the recruitment in question was issued on 18.07.2023 (Annexure-10) and the cause, if any, arose to the petitioner on the said date as his name was not reflected in the said selection list. However, no action whatsoever was taken by the petitioners at that point of time and it is only after the judgment in Naveen Swami (supra) having attained finality that the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Counsel further submits that the recruitment in question is complete by all means and granting a relief to the petitioners at this stage would result into the opening of a pandora’s box. 8. Responding to the argument regarding the existing vacant posts, counsel submits that the seats, even if vacant, are liable to be notified in the next recruitment process to be initiated by the respondent-Department. The seats as advertised vide the advertisement in question, even if not filled up, cannot grant any vested right to the petitioners to be appointed. 9. Heard the counsels and perused the record. 10. So far as the ratio laid down in the cases of Deepak Bariya (supra) and Naveen Swami (supra) is concerned, there is no quarrel over the same. 11. The eligibility of a candidate who is a graduate and has read English as a compulsory subject for all the three years of graduation, was eligible to be considered. But then, it is crystal clear that the petitioner who did not find place in the final selection list issued on 18.07.2023 remained contended with the same and did not raise any grievance qua the same till the year 2025. But then, it is crystal clear that the petitioner who did not find place in the final selection list issued on 18.07.2023 remained contended with the same and did not raise any grievance qua the same till the year 2025. Even the judgment in Naveen Swami (supra) was passed on 16.10.2023, but the petitioner who now relies upon the said judgment did not approach this Court even after the passing of the said judgment. It is only after the appeal of the department against the Single Bench judgment in Naveen Swami (supra) having been dismissed by the Division Bench that the petitioner approached this Court. 12. This Court is of the clear opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioners at this stage on the sole count of them having approached this Court after a huge delay. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 356 while rejecting the petition on the ground of delay and laches held as under: "Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided." 14. Keeping into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava; (2015) 1 SCC 347 , this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present petition only on the ground that a relief had been granted to some similarly situated person in the year 2023. In Arvind Kumar Srivastava’s case (supra) while observing that fence-sitters cannot be given benefit on the basis of parity, it was held as under: "23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the Appellants as well as the Respondents, can be summed up as under: (1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. (2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence- sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss thei r claim." 15. Further, this Court also takes into consideration the fact that there would be hundreds of candidates who would be on a similar footing as of Naveen Swami (supra) or the present petitioners. As is evident, the recruitment process in question stood completed in the year 2023. Granting any relief to the petitioners at this stage would definitely mean opening of a Pandora’s box. 16. Further, there is no provision of law which specifies that if all the seats as advertised in a particular recruitment process are not filled up or a fresh recruitment process is not initiated by the State-Department qua the unfilled posts, the recruitment process shall be deemed to be not complete and shall continue till the date all the vacant posts are filled up. Every recruitment process has to come to an end on one date and the process completed, cannot be re-opened at the instance of some person who accepted his fate once but chose to approach the Court after some similarly situated person who approached the Court in time, was granted any relief. 17. This Court does not find any ground to entertain the present writ petition, the same being highly delayed. The present writ petition is hence, dismissed. 18. 17. This Court does not find any ground to entertain the present writ petition, the same being highly delayed. The present writ petition is hence, dismissed. 18. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.