Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

1. The prayer in the present petition is to set aside the order dated 29.07.2015 vide which the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification on the date of the examination.

2. The petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.08.2013 for the post of School Lecturer in the subject of Commerce being allegedly eligible for the post under the respective category.

3. As per the advertisement dated 02.08.2013, the candidates who were studying in the final year examination of required qualification for direct recruitment could also apply but such applicant should have cleared the said examination before the commencement of the competitive examination. The first paper of the Combined competitive examination was on 12.07.2014 and the second paper was on 27.09.2014. Whereas, the result of the petitioner with respect to the requisite qualification of M. Com Post Graduation was declared on 17.07.2014. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not have the requisite qualification of M.Com Post Graduation on the date of the commencement of the Competitive examination.

4. While praying for the relief learned counsel for the petitioner contended that examination was still going on when the result of his requisite qualifying examination was declared. Hence, he should be considered eligible as per the terms of the advertisement. It is further contended that his case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Manju Chaba v. R.P.S.C. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.35/2015).

5. Heard.

6. It is not disputed that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of the said judgment in the case of Manju Chaba (supra) but the petitioner cannot be granted the same relief in view of the delay and laches in the facts of the present case. As per the reply, the petitioner was informed about the cancellation of his candidature on 29.07.2105. He did not approach to the Court till June,2016 and that too only after the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Manju Chaba (supra). Thus, the petitioner cannot seek the same treatment as Manju Chaba (supra) as she had come well in time and the protection by way of interim relief was also granted to her. However, the petitioner has come after almost 10 months of the order rejecting his candidature and nor any interim order was passed in his favour. Meanwhile, the selection has been finalized.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 05 seats are lying vacant. However, the same does not help inasmuch as learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that 06 candidates have to be adjusted against these 05 seats as per the orders passed by the various Courts qua these 06 candidates. These candidates had come well in time and hence were also granted protection vide interim orders.

8. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014) decided on 17.10.2014 while dealing with the question of delay and latches held that in such like cases, the Court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent specially when the claimants lost time and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions by holding that :-

“(23) The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all