LPA-414-2026 (O&M) & connected cases -1 v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate & Mr. Abhishek Masih, Advocate for the appellants in LP Nos.414,417,418,422,423,502,483,488,489,491,492 & 492 of 2026. Mr. Ashish Handa, Advocate & Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the appellants in LPA-495-2026. Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate for the appellant in LPA-646-2026. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.5 in LPA-414-2026. LPA-414-2026 (O&M) & connected cases -5- * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-1619-LPA-2026

#1. Present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal bearing LPA No.646-2026.

#2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal bearing LPA No.646-2026 is condoned. Main appeals

#3. In the present bunch of appeals, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which, the claim of the appellants herein that they are entitled for appointment to the post of Clerk as advertised by the respondents vide advertisement No.02 of 2013 on the ground that they have secured more marks than the general category candidates, has been declined by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay.

#4. Certain facts need to be noticed for the correct appreciation of the issue raised in the present appeals.

#5. An advertisement No.02 of 2013 was issued by the respondents inviting applications against 1192 post of clerks to be appointed in the different departments of the Government of Punjab. The said 1192 posts of Clerks were reserved for various categories and appellants herein applied for appointment to the said post of clerk in reserved category of backward class. The appellants herein though competed in selection process but could not attain the required marks required to be selected in reserved category of backward class keeping in view their inter se merit and number of vacancies available to be filled up in the said LPA-414-2026 (O&M) & connected cases -6- reserved category. The appellants herein never raised any grievance but some of the similarly situated candidates belonging to the reserved category of backward class, agitated their claim before this Court by way of filing writ petitions in the year 2014 itself when the appointment to said post were being made by contending that they have attained higher marks than the last candidate selected in the general category and as per the settled principle of law, any candidate belonging to reserved category having higher marks than the last candidate selected in the general category and is eligible to compete in general category keeping in view the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement, is to be preferred and appointed over and above such general category candidate, who has lesser marks than the reserved category candidate.

#6. The said writ petition bearing CWP-12618-2014 titled as Parminder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others was considered and allowed by this Court along with other connected cases and a direction was given to re-frame the merit list by giving due consideration to the claim of the reserved category candidates, who had higher marks than the last selected candidate in the general category but the said consideration was directed to be limited only to the petitioners therein, who have raised the grievance in the said writ petitions before this Court.

#7. The State of Punjab accepted the said decision and prepared a revised merit list by considering the grievance raised by the petitioners in CWP- 12618-2014 and other connected writ petitions, who had raised said grievance and appointments to the post of clerk were made by the State of Punjab on the basis of the said revised merit list.

#8. After the said exercise of appointing the petitioners on said post of LPA-414-2026 (O&M) & connected cases -7- clerk had already been completed, the candidates, who though were similarly situated as the petitioners in CWP-12618-2014 but never agitated their claim, approached this Court by way of filing CWP-208-2018, which petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 10.01.2018 on the ground that there is a delay in raising the grievance and such delay is fatal to the relief claimed.

#9. The writ petition being CWP-311-2018 along with other connected petitions, which have been filed by the appellants herein, were also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.01.2026 on the same analogy that the selection made in the year 2014 could not be again undone at the instance of the appellants herein, who raised the grievance for the very first time even after the revised merit list was prepared. The said order dated 21.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, is under challenge in the present bunch of writ petitions.

#10. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that once, a similar relief had already been given by this Court to the similarly situated candidates while deciding CWP-12618-2014 along with other connected cases on 15.12.2017, restricting the said relief only to the petitioners therein, is incorrect as, once a revised merit list was to be prepared, the same should have been prepared qua all the candidates irrespective of the fact whether the aggrieved candidate had challenged the said action or not.

#11. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that once a revised merit list was prepared in the year 2018, the same will give rise to a fresh cause of action and, therefore, filing the writ petition immediately after preparation of such revised list can not be treated as delay in approaching the Court to seek the LPA-414-2026 (O&M) & connected cases -8- relief, which aspect has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.

#12. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that once, the similar relief as claimed by appellants herein was given to the similarly situated candidates while deciding CWP-12618-2014, the claim of the appellants herein that their claim is meritorious cannot be disputed and, therefore, once the claim was meritorious, the same could not have been rejected merely on the ground of delay. 13 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the selection of candidates for post of clerk was initially finalized in the year 2014 and accordingly a merit list was prepared, which merit list was never agitated by the appellants herein which means that they accepted the same. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submits that once the appellants accepted the said merit list, merely that the said merit list was challenged by some candidates will not give a right to the appellants to claim the same relief especially when, the Court imposed a restriction that the said revised merit list be prepared by giving consideration to the petitioners before this Court, who had agitated their claim immediately when the select list/merit list was made in the year 2014.

#14. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that no candidate who is similarly situated as the appellants, who was not party to the litigation when the same was decided by this Court while passing order dated 15.12.2017 in CWP12618-2014 with other connected petitions, wherein relief was given and a revised merit list was prepared has been considered as the part of the revised merit list and, therefore, the revised merit list has been prepared strictly as per the LPA-414-2026 (O&M) & connected cases -9- direction given by this Court by taking into consideration the petitioners hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners i.e. appellants herein, did not approach this Court at the relevant time and the delay in raising claim at such belated stage, cannot be accepted is perfectly valid and legal especially when, the posts which were advertised, have already been filled up and selected candidates have been working on said post.

#15. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submits that the selected candidates, who were selected initially or even in the revised merit list, are not a party to the present appeals and in case the claim of the appellants is to be decided in their favour, some of the selected candidates who have already been working for the last 10-12 years, are likely to be ousted hence, in their absence, even otherwise, no relief can be granted to the appellants.

#16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

#17. It is a settled principle of law that the relief has to be given to a person/claimant, who is vigilant about his/her rights. A person who is a fence- sitter cannot be allowed to claim the same relief in case by the time such relief is being claimed, the delay so occurred is fatal in nature.

#18. It may be noticed that the facts which have been noticed hereinbefore clearly go to show that initially a select list/merit list was prepared in the year 2014 and to the said select list, no grievance was raised by the appellants herein and they were satisfied whereas, some of the similarly situated candidates agitated their claim, which claim was ultimately allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2017 and a direction was given that the relief with regard to the revised merit list will be only limited qua the candidates LPA-414-2026 (O&M) & connected cases -10- who have agitated their claim before the Court. The said decision was accepted by the State and a revised merit list by considering the claim of the candidates, who were before this Court at the the relevant time was prepared. Said revised merit list was prepared and implemented as well and it is only thereafter, the appellants herein raised their claim that they being similarly situated to the petitioners in CWP-12618-2014 so as to claim the same relief on the ground that certain candidates belonging to general category, who were having lesser merit than the appellants herein belonging to reserved category have also been accommodated in the revised merit list to be appointed on the post of Clerks.

#19. It may be further noticed that once, a restriction was imposed by the Court to only consider the candidates, who were before this Court in CWP-12618- 2014 to frame the revised merit list, the appellants herein cannot claim that they should also be treated as part of the same and ignoring their claim, is bad in law. The direction given by this Court in CWP-12618-2014 has been complied with by State of Punjab hence, no fault can be attributed to the State in only considering the claim of the candidates, who were before this Court in CWP-12618-2014 with other connected cases, while re-framing the merit list in the year 2018.

#20. With regard to the ground taken by learned Single Judge that there is a delay in approaching the Court, it may be noticed that in case the delay is such that it becomes fatal to the claim raised, such delay has to be taken into account to deny the relief irrespective of the merits of the case.

#21. It may be noticed that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Ram Gopal 2021 Volume 13, SCC 225 has held that bar of limitation does not strictly apply to the proceedings undergoing under Articles LPA-414-2026 (O&M) & connected cases -11- 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, but, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. It has been further held that the fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. The relevant paragraph 16 of the said judgment is as under:- “16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept 1 (1975) 1 SCC 152. over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced.”

#22. The said judgment is fully applicable in the present case, as, the initial select list/merit list for the post of clerk was prepared in the year 2014, which itself ousted the appellants herein from the zone of merit/selection though, the candidates who had attained lesser marks in the general category had already been appointed. The similarly situated candidates raised a grievance before this Court immediately by filing CWP-12618-2014 whose grievance was accepted and an order was passed by learned Single Judge in the year 2017 for their consideration alone. It is only thereafter the appellants herein also approached this Court hence, the appellants can only be treated as fence-sitters as they approached the Court only when similarly situated candidates had been granted the relief. Hence, the appellants who are the fence-sitters cannot be allowed now to barge in so as to oust the candidates, who have not only been selected but also have been working for the last 12 years as of now. LPA-414-2026 (O&M) & connected cases -12-

#23. Further, it is to be seen whether the delay in raising the claim is fatal keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case or not.

#24. It may be noticed that as per the settled principle of law that the number of vacancies which have been advertised can be filled and no more than that can be filled. The State is on record to say that all the vacancies which had been advertised, have already been filled up. Once, all such vacancies have already been filled up and the candidates have been working on the post of clerk for more than one decade, now ousting them at the asking of the appellants cannot be allowed and such delay is to be treated as fatal. Even if, such candidate did not have the initial merit to be appointed but though have been appointed and have been continuously working as such for the last 12 years, they cannot be ousted at this stage so as to accommodate the appellants herein and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present petitions, the delay at hands of appellants in raising the claim is to be treated as fatal as all the posts have already been filled up and the candidates so recruited as clerks against whom the claim is being raised by the appellant herein that they are more meritorious.

#25. Even otherwise, a bare perusal of the appeals would show that most of the selected candidates, which are likely to be affected by the outcome of the present case, have not been made party to the appeals. It is a conceded position that in case the claim of the appellants is accepted, the selected candidates of the general category or even the backward class candidates, who are not party to the present proceedings, who had been made part of the revised merit list and were lesser meritorious than the appellants, will have to make a way for the appellants, which cannot be accepted as same will cause prejudice to such selected candidates. No order can be passed against a person, who is not even a party before the Court. LPA-414-2026 (O&M) & connected cases -13-

#26. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade this Court that even in the absence of the candidates, who are to be ousted in case claim of appellant is accepted, who are a necessary party, still a relief can be granted to the appellants.

#28. No other argument has been raised. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded hereinbefore coupled with the settled principle of law that the delay in raising claim will overpower the merit of the case in case the delay is fatal and fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge in to claim the relief hence, the present appeals are dismissed.

#30. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 02, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes Whether reportable : No18