AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH (i) Parveen Kumar Parveen Kumar CWP-17556-2026 (O&M) v. State of Punjab State of Punjab & Ors.

Judgment

1. This order shall dispose of both the said writ petitions, as both the above-said writ petitions, as common question of law and facts are involved for adjudication. For the common question of law and facts are involved for adjudication. For the common question of law and facts are involved for adjudication. For the common question of law and facts are involved for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-17556-2026. sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article s filed the present petition under Articles mandamus directing 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of the respondents to decide his claim for appointment on the the respondents to decide his claim for appointment on the post of Clerk in terms of order dated 19.05.2025, passed by this Court in CWP terms of order dated 19.05.2025 2016 passed by this Court in CWP-13870-2016 , which Jaswinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others’, which Jaswinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others titled as ‘Jaswinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others

2019 titled as was disposed of in terms of judgment rendered in LPA-1843-2019 titled as was disposed of in terms of judgment rendered in LPA was disposed of in terms of judgment rendered in LPA CWP-17556-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) and 2026 (O&M) CWP-17559-2026 (O&M) (2) State of Punjab & another Vs. Karamjeet Kaur ‘State of Punjab & and further seeking all another Vs. Karamjeet Kaur’ and further seeking all consequential benefits arising from it. consequential benefits arising from it

3. , as have been stated in the petition, are Brief facts of the case, as have been stated in the petition, are , as have been stated in the petition, are , issued Advertisement the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, issued Advertisement the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab that the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab No.2 of 2013 for recruitment of 1192 posts of Clerk No.2 of 2013 for recruitment of 1192 posts of Clerks. The petitioner, being eligible and holder of degree from Deemed Universit eligible and holder of degree from , applied for the said eemed University, applied for the said posts and successfully qualified the Punjabi Type Test conducted in the posts and successfully qualified the Punjabi Type Test conducted in the posts and successfully qualified the Punjabi Type Test conducted in the posts and successfully qualified the Punjabi Type Test conducted in the months of November/December, 2013. His name months of November eared in the list of . His name appeared in the list of

26.05.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner qualified candidates published on 26.05.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner 26.05.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner qualified candidates published on with original documents, however, the appeared for counselling along with original documents, however, the with original documents, however, the appeared for respondents withheld his candidature on the ground that his degree obtained respondents withheld his candidature on the ground that his degree obtained respondents withheld his candidature on the ground that his degree obtained respondents withheld his candidature on the ground that his degree obtained from the Deemed University was required to be verified under UGC eemed University was required to be verified under UGC University was required to be verified under UGC guidelines. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, vide guidelines. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected guidelines. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected order dated 17.03.2015, solely

17.03.2015, solely on the ground that he had obtained degree on the ground that he had obtained degree from Deemed University eemed University.

4. in the writ petition itself, the As per the averments made in the writ petition itself, the in the writ petition itself, the finalized in the year 2015 and the instant writ petition selection process was finalized in the year 2015 and the instant writ petition finalized in the year 2015 and the instant writ petition selection process was 2026 i.e. after a delay of 11 years. The reliance has been filed in the year 2026 i.e. after a delay of 11 years. The reliance 2026 i.e. after a delay of 11 years. The reliance has been filed in the year e Bench placed by the petitioner upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench placed by the petitioner upon the judgment passed by the Coordinat placed by the petitioner upon the judgment passed by the Coordinat in Jaswinder Jaswinder Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case, is not applicable in the present case, as the said advertisement relates to the posts of the said advertisement relates to the post and there was no delay of Masters and there was no delay and was decided in the said case, as the said case was filed in the year 2016 and was decided in the said case, as the said case was filed in the year 2016 in the said case, as the said case was filed in the year 2016 Since there is an undue and unexplained delay in in the year 2025. Since there is an undue and unexplained delay in Since there is an undue and unexplained delay in in the year 2025 deserve to be approaching this Court, therefore, the instant petitions deserve to be approaching this Court, therefore, the instant petition approaching this Court, therefore, the instant petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. CWP-17556-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) and 2026 (O&M) CWP-17559-2026 (O&M) (3)

5. Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009 (2) Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others : 2009 (2) Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others : Padvekar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others : , while referring to the issue of delay and laches, had held as follows:- , while referring to the issue of delay and laches, had held as follows: SCT 24, while referring to the issue of delay and laches, had held as follows: “8. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in when they exercise their discretionary mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary when they exercise their discretionary under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short powers ‘Constitution’). In an appropriate case the High Court may the ‘Constitution’). In an appropriate case the High Court may ‘Constitution’). In an appropriate case the High Court may powers if there is such negligence refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence powers if there is such negligence n the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken n the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and as pointed out in Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and . Of course, the discretion Exports (AIR 1970 Supreme Court 769). Of course, the discretion Exports (AIR 1970 Supreme Court 769) has to be exercised judicially and reasonably. has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.

9. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in mpany v. Prosper Armstrong Hurde etc., Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Prosper Armstrong Hurde etc., mpany v. Prosper Armstrong Hurde etc., Lindsay Petroleum Co (1874) 5 PC 221 at page 239 was approved by this Court in Moon at page 239 was approved by this Court in Moon 1450) Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Courts, (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1450) Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Courts, (AIR 1967 S Maharashtra State Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular and Maharashtra State Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Maharashtra State Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service (AIR 1969 Supreme Court 329) , Sir Barnes had eme Court 329), Sir Barnes had stated: in Courts of Equity is not an "Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an "Now the doctrine of laches arbitrary or technical doctrine. Where it would be practically arbitrary or technical doctrine. Where it would be practically arbitrary or technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as duct and equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his con neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be put the other party in a situation in which it would not be put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against material. But in every case, if an argument against material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, if founded upon mere relief, which otherwise would be just, if founded upon mere relief, which otherwise would be just, if founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried statute of limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried statute of limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried stantially equitable. Two circumstances stantially equitable. Two circumstances upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances always important in such cases are, the length of the delay always important in such cases are, the length of the delay always important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval which and the nature of the acts done during the interval which and the nature of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or the other, so far as injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as injustice in taking the one course or relates to the remedy." CWP-17556-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) and 2026 (O&M) CWP-17559-2026 (O&M) (4)

10. It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation with Article 32 of in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation with Article 32 of in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation with Article 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards that Article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in that Article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in that Article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in R.N. Bose v. Union of India, (AIR 1970 Supreme Court 470) R.N (AIR 1970 Supreme Court 470) that no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable fter inordinate explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 after inordinate explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 a delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself a guaranteed delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself a guaranteed delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right, it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the right, it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the right, it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution makers that this Court should disregard all principles Constitution makers that this Court should disregard all principles Constitution makers that this Court should disregard all principles after inordinate delay. and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay.

11. It was stated in State of M.P. v. Nandlal (AIR 1987 State of M.P. v. Nandlal, (AIR 1987 that the High Court in exercise of its discretion Supreme Court 251) that the High Court in exercise of its discretion that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the gh Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of gh Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a ikely to belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is l cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its trail new cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its trail new cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its trail new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and rties. It was pointed out inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out inconvenience but also injustice on third pa that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an with the creation of third party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. whether or not to exercise such jur

12. In view of the aforesaid position we are not inclined to In view of the aforesaid position we are not inclined to In view of the aforesaid position we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.” interfere in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.”

6. State of Uttaranchal Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2013(12) and another Vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013(12) and another Vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, and another Vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, , while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and SCC 179, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and , while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and , while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring referring referring referring to earlier to earlier to earlier to earlier judgments on judgments on judgments on judgments on issue, opined issue, opined issue, opined issue, opined that repeated that repeated that repeated that repeated CWP-17556-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) and 2026 (O&M) CWP-17559-2026 (O&M) (5) representations made will not keep the issue alive. A stale or a dead representations made will not keep the issue alive. A stale or a dead representations made will not keep the issue alive. A stale or a dead representations made will not keep the issue alive. A stale or a dead h a representation has been issue/dispute cannot be revived even if such a representation has been issue/dispute cannot be revived even if suc issue/dispute cannot be revived even if suc decided either by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the decided either by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the decided either by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the decided either by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference ssed. to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order pa to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order pa Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may disentitle him Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may disentitle him Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may disentitle him Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may disentitle him from receiving the benefit that had been granted to others. Article 14 of the from receiving the benefit that had been granted to others. Article 14 of the from receiving the benefit that had been granted to others. Article 14 of the from receiving the benefit that had been granted to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not be attracted as it is well established principle Constitution of India would not be attracted as it is well established principle Constitution of India would not be attracted as it is well established principle Constitution of India would not be attracted as it is well established principle of law “that the la that the law favours those who are alert and vigilant . Even equality w favours those who are alert and vigilant”. Even equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article it should be filed within a reasonable 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable it should be filed within a reasonable 226 of the Constitution of India, yet the courts can always interfere even time. Though it is not a strict rule, but the courts can always interfere even the courts can always interfere even time. Though it is not a strict rule subsequent thereto, but relief to a person, who allows things to happen and subsequent thereto, but relief to a person, who allows things to happen and subsequent thereto, but relief to a person, who allows things to happen and subsequent thereto, but relief to a person, who allows things to happen and to unsettle then approach the court and puts forward a stale claim and try to unsettle then approach the court and puts forward a stale claim and try then approach the court and puts forward a stale claim and try settled matters, can certainly be refused on account of delay and laches. settled matters, can certainly be refused on account of delay and laches. settled matters, can certainly be refused on account of delay and laches. settled matters, can certainly be refused on account of delay and laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer the consequences. An Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer the consequences. An Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer the consequences. An Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer the consequences. An employee who remains dormant like a ‘Rip Van Winkle’ and awakens from employee who remains dormant like a ‘Rip Van Winkle’ and awakens from employee who remains dormant like a ‘Rip Van Winkle’ and awakens from employee who remains dormant like a ‘Rip Van Winkle’ and awakens from his deep slumber at his o wn convenience, cannot claim relief, as such slumber at his own convenience, cannot claim relief, as such wn convenience, cannot claim relief, as such conduct justifies denial on the ground of delay and laches. Relevant conduct justifies denial on the ground of delay and laches. Relevant conduct justifies denial on the ground of delay and laches. Relevant conduct justifies denial on the ground of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs from the aforesaid judgment are extracted below: paragraphs from the aforesaid judgment are extracted below: paragraphs from the aforesaid judgment are extracted below: “13. We have no trace of doubt that the respondents could We have no trace of doubt that the respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior employee challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior employee challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior employee at the relevant time. They chose not to do so for six years and the at the relevant time. They chose not to do so for six years and the at the relevant time. They chose not to do so for six years and the junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular junior employee held the promotional post for six years till regular ed counsel for the promotion took place. The submission of the learned counsel for the promotion took place. The submission of the learn promotion took place. The submission of the learn respondents is that they had given representations at the relevant respondents is that they had given representations at the relevant respondents is that they had given representations at the relevant CWP-17556-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) and 2026 (O&M) CWP-17559-2026 (O&M) (6) time but the same fell in deaf ears. It is interesting to note that when time but the same fell in deaf ears. It is interesting to note that when time but the same fell in deaf ears. It is interesting to note that when the regular selection took place, they accepted the position solely the regular selection took place, they accepted the position solely the regular selection took place, they accepted the position solely ntained and, thereafter, they knocked because the seniority was maintained and, thereafter, they knocked ntained and, thereafter, they knocked at the doors of the tribunal only in 2003. It is clear as noon day that at the doors of the tribunal only in 2003. It is clear as noon day that at the doors of the tribunal only in 2003. It is clear as noon day that the cause of action had arisen for assailing the order when the the cause of action had arisen for assailing the order when the the cause of action had arisen for assailing the order when the C. junior employee was promoted on ad hoc basis on 15.11.1983. In C. junior employee was promoted on ad hoc basis on 15.11.1983. In junior employee was promoted on ad hoc basis on 15.11.1983. In r of Geology and Mining and another, 2008(4) Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another, 2008(4) r of Geology and Mining and another, 2008(4) S.C.T. 604 : (2008) 10 SCC 115, a two Judge Bench was dealing , a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the concept of representations and the directions issued by the with the concept of representations and the directions issued by the with the concept of representations and the directions issued by the court or tribunal to consider the representations and the challenge court or tribunal to consider the representations and the challenge court or tribunal to consider the representations and the challenge rejection thereafter. In that context, the court has to the said rejection thereafter. In that context, the court has rejection thereafter. In that context, the court has expressed thus:- Every representation to the Government for relief, may not “Every representation to the Government for relief, may not Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be that ground alone, without examining the merits that ground alone, without examining the merits rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate with incomplete particulars Department. Representations with incomplete particulars Department. Representations may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.” or revive a stale or dead claim.”

17. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2)