The principle of delay and laches in approaching the court, and the application of the 'no negative equality' principle in seeking parity with another individual's promotion.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) along with all consequential benefits with effect from 30.04.2019 i.e., date of announcement of revised result of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (SI/GD-2016).

2. The respondent had issued an advertisement inviting applications from serving and eligible Constables and Head Constables for selection to the post of Sub Inspector (GD) to limited department competitive examination 2016.

3. Petitioner appeared in the examination, the result of which was declared on 08.02.2017 in which the petitioner was declared as unsuccessful. Some of the unsuccessful candidates challenged the result by approaching this Court. The respondent/CRPF acknowledged that there were some errors and mistakes in the examination procedure and consequently the mistakes were rectified and result was revised and revised result was declared on 30.04.2019 wherein once again the petitioner was shown as `Not qualified'.

4. As per the petitioner, one Constable/GD Kuldeep also belonging to the General/OBC category had earlier been declared successful was after revision of result was declared as unsuccessful.

5. Said Kuldeep had secured 130 marks and petitioner has secured 134 marks. The cut-off for the General/OBC category was 138 marks in the revised result. Since petitioner had 134 marks i.e., less than the cut-off 138, petitioner was not selected.

6. 20 candidates who had earlier been declared successful and after revision of the result, declared unsuccessful filed a petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 4910/2019, titled as Chaman Giri & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors..

7. By an interim order dated 13.05.2019, this Court had directed that all those who had been declared successful in the pre-revised result and had been promoted to the post of Sub Inspector/GD shall not be reverted back.

8. Consequently, said Kuldeep, who had been promoted earlier prior to the revision of the result, continued on the post of Sub Inspector/GD pursuant to interim order passed by this Court. Subsequently, said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 14.12.2020.

9. Petitioners therein approached the Supreme Court. In the Special Leave Petition filed by said Kuldeep i.e. SLP (C) No. 884/2021, on 13.01.2021, the Supreme Court passed an interim order directing maintenance of status quo. Resultantly, all the said candidates continued on the post of Sub Inspector/GD pursuant to the interim order passed by the Supreme Court. We are informed that the Special Leave Petition is still pending.

10. Petitioner had filed the subject petition contending that on 30.12.2022 a promotion order has been issued promoting said Kuldeep to the rank of Inspector/GD. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this promotion order gives rise to a fresh case of action to the petitioner to file the present petition.

11. We may notice that the petitioner had participated in an examination held in 2016. The initial result was declared on 08.02.2017 when petitioner was declared unsuccessful. Thereafter, the result was revised and final result was declared on 30.04.2019 where again the petitioner was declared unsuccessful having secured less than the cut-off marks for his category.

12. Petitioner never raised a grievance with regard to his rejection. Subject petition has been filed after a lapse of over four years impugning a result which was declared on 30.04.2019.

13. The petition filed by the petitioner is highly belated and suffers from delay and latches. Normally for entertaining a writ petition, there is no limitation prescribed, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner approaches the Court after a lapse of several years and having let the claim become stale, this Court would decline to entertain a petition and reject the same on the ground of delay and latches.

14. In Union of