T.Selvakumar vs The Secretary to Government

R. Sudhakar, J.—The petitioner in this case was in service under the respondent and had applied to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Police Subordinate Service in the year 2006. The petitioner applied for selection as a department candidate as he satisfied all the qualifications and eligibility criteria. He appeared for physical measurement test, endurance test and physical efficiency test in 2006, the details of which are not in dispute. The petitioner also appeared for the interview on 12.6.07. There was also a written examination (objective type).

The grievance of the petitioner is that answers to most of the questions are correct and, therefore, he is entitled to higher marks and, consequently, he should get higher marks over and above the cut off mark and therefore he is entitled to appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police.

Even at the threshold, this writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The petition has been filed on 2.1.10, i.e., nearly after three years. The petitioner relies upon an order passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No. 13167/09 dated 4.12.09, wherein reliance has been placed on an earlier order in W.P. No. 4509/09 dated 4.11.09 and similar relief is sought for in the present petition.

The respondents, on notice, have filed counter affidavit primarily contending that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches and this Court is inclined to accept the plea in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1719/10 dated 23.12.10, which reads as under:-

No doubt the petitioner had legitimate expectation about the selection and they are also not responsible for the problem. However, the petitioner approached the Court only in 2009 for the first time. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, held as follows:-

It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be allowed to raise the dispute or challenge the validity of the order after its conclusion. No party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and laches.

Hence the petitioners who approached the court for the first time are definitely "fence sitters". In view of that the writ petitions filed by those petitioners who approached the court for the first time in 2009 are dismissed on the ground of delay.

Furthermore, even on merits, it appears that the order dated 4.11.09 in W.P. No. 4509/09 relied upon by the petitioner in the typed set of papers has been reversed in W.A. No. 1719/10 vide order dated 23.12.10 and, therefore, the question of granting similar relief as granted in W.P. No. 4509/09 does not arise.

Therefore, on the question of merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches, this petition cannot be entertained and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.