The relevance of delay and laches in claiming the benefit of a judgment and the impact of the conduct of the party in seeking relief.

Antony Dominic, J.

1. The issue raised in these writ petitions is regarding sustainability of the claim of the petitioners for publication of additional rank list for the post of HSA (English).

2. It is stated that, on 26/04/2002, a common notification was issued by the PSC for filling up the post of HSA (English) in all the Districts in the State. Written tests were held on 21/10/2004 and short lists were published sometime in early 2005. Insofar as these writ petitions are concerned, petitioners are candidates who participated in the selection process for Kollam, Kozhikode, Thiruvananthapuram and Kottayam Districts and ranked lists were published on 20/09/2005, 21/10/2005, 08/06/2005 and 30/08/2005 respectively. Similarly, rank lists were also published insofar as the other Districts in the State are concerned.

3. During 2005, several writ petitions were filed before this Court seeking orders for publication of additional ranked lists, for 8 Districts, other than the aforesaid four Districts and Pathanamthitta and Idukki Districts. These writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Ajayan v. Sate of Kerala, 2006 KHC 1022 : 2006 (3) KLT 854 : ILR 2006 (3) Ker. 641. The Public Service Commission challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Apex Court by filing special leave petitions which were dismissed by order dated 26/03/2008, on the ground that it was not maintainable as PSC had no locus standi in the matter. It is stated that, implementing the said judgment, short lists for 8 Districts covered by the judgment reported in Ajayan case were published and the steps for the publication of the additional ranked lists have been taken.

4. Though the judgment reported in Ajayan case was rendered in writ petitions filed in 2005, these present writ petitions concerning Kollam, Kozhikode, Thiruvananthapuram and Kottayam Districts were filed in July, August and September 2008 and relief similar to what was granted in Ajayan case is prayed for.

5. The contention raised is that, the petitioners being candidates similarly situated like the petitioners who filed the earlier batch of writ petitions should also get the benefit of the judgment in Ajayan case and that the Public Service Commission should publish additional ranked lists concerning these districts as well. Counsel for the petitioners claim parity in treatment relying on the judgments reported in State of Karnataka and Others v. C. Lalitha, 2006 KHC 144 : 2006 (1) Supreme Today 640 : 2006 (2) SCC 747 : 2006 (2) KLT SN 5 : JT 2006 (2) SC 322 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 447 : 2006 (2) LLN 45 : 2006 (2) SLR 599 : 2006 (41) AIC 579 (SC), Somukuttan Nair v. State of Kerala, 1997 KHC 114 : 1997 (1) KLT 601 : ILR 1997 (3) Ker. 419 and K. T. Veerappa and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2006 KHC 1199 : 2006 (9) SCC 406 : JT 2006 (6) SC 408 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1823 : 2006 (3) LLN 783.

6. The standing counsel for the Public Service Commission submits that though the SLP filed against the judgment in Ajayan case supra was dismissed, review petition filed before the Apex Court is pending and that pending consideration of the review, the judgment has been implemented insofar as the 8 Districts covered by the judgment are concerned. It is stated that, insofar as other Districts are concerned, no direction has been issued by this Court and they have not implemented the judgment. It is stated that fresh notification has been issued for preparation of ranked lists. It is contended that the petitioners herein are guilty of delay and laches and that even for claiming the benefit of the judgment, the conduct of the party concerned is relevant. They are also heavily relying on the judgment in Ajayan case, where it has been held as follows:

"Those who have not challenged the list so far, even if similarly placed, will not be entitled to the benefits as they have slept over the matter for years."

7. It is contended that insofar as the petitioners herein are