Delay and laches prevent claimants from seeking equitable relief in writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for prompt pursuit of legal rights.

JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the Respondent nos.2 & 3 and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

“(i) For issuance of writ, in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ direction or directions, order or orders commanding the respondent authorities to select and appoint of the petitioner in the light of judgment dated 17.04.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in LPA No.650 of 2022 and its analogous cases by which direction was issued to centralized selection and appointment to the post of Clerk in pursuant to employment notice no.01/2026 and the petitioner comes under the purview of said judgment and has more marks than the selected and appointed candidates.

(ii) For that, issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities to extend all the consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner after appointing and allowing them to submit their joining against the posts of clerks in the subordinate courts within the State of Bihar on the basis of their respective position in the consolidated merit list of all the candidates prepared by the concerned authorities in the office of the Convener, Co-ordination Committee, Patna pursuant to Employment Notice No.1/2016.

(iii) For that, issuance of a declaration holding that the petitioners, amongst other persons, are entitled for being considered for appointment and joining against the posts of clerks in different subordinate courts within the State of Bihar on the basis of their respective position in the merit list prepared by the concerned respondent authorities upon conclusion of the process of selection pursuant to Employment Notice No.01/2016 in terms of the provisions contained under the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 2009.

(iv) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner/petitioners may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3. By an Advertisement dated 07.02.2016, the office of the Convenor, Co-ordination Committee, Patna-cum-District & Sessions Judge, Patna invited online applications for filling up of 1681 posts in Grade III (Clerk), as per the reservation roster. On 26.09.2018, select list was published. The petitioner being a candidate of Backward Caste category was selected and his name was in the panel (at Sl.No.1680), having secured total 71.50 marks.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has secured higher marks (71.50) than respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 20 and 23, all belonging to B.C. category, (respondent no.8 – 71.33 marks, respondent no.9 – 71.33 marks, respondent no.10 – 71.28 marks, respondent no.20 – 70.00 marks, respondent no.23 – 69.00 marks). In spite of that, respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 20 and 23 were selected and appointed but the petitioner was not appointed.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this regard has relied upon the judgment dated 19.04.2023 passed in LPA No.650 of 2022 and referring to paragraph nos. 20, 21 and 22, he claims equity with those candidates, who had approached the writ court in the year, 2018 and 2019.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Patna High Court has submitted that the Advertisement is of the year, 2016 and the merit list was published on 26.09.2018 and thereafter being aggr