JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

“The humble petitioners most humbly prays that your lordship may very graciously be pleased to call for entire record pertaining to this case and accept and allow this petition and by an appropriate writ or directions, that the illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary appointment dated 30.09.2016 (Annexure-6) of Respondent No. 3, Shri Rajaram Sharma on the post of Drug Controller, Rajasthan, be quashed and set aside and Departmental Enquiry be conducted against him and other persons involved in this matter.

Any other direction or order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 was appointed on the post of Drug Inspector on 18.01.1995 on compassionate grounds and he does not possess the requisite qualification for the said post. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 was appointed on the post of Assistant Drug Controller on 29.09.2014 and promoted on the post of Drug Controller on 30.09.2016 for the year 2016-2017 in violation of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963 (for short ‘the Rules of 1963’).

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Drug Inspector on 18.01.1995. And as per the Rules, 5 years experience is required for promotion to the post of Assistant Drug Controller. He submitted that the case of the respondent No. 3 and others was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting dated 12.08.2014 and promotion was given to him on the post of Assistant Drug Controller against the vacancy of the year 2010-2011. Counsel submitted that as per the Circular dated 31.03.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, the experience is required to be calculated from the selection year against which promotion was granted and accordingly promotion was given to the respondent No. 3 on the post of Drug Controller as per the Rules of 1963.

4. Apart from above submissions, the counsel for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. They co-jointly submit that the petition is barred by delay and laches as the petitioner has approached after a delay of about four years.

5. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, it is clear that this petition has been filed after a delay of four years of the order of promotion given to the respondent No. 3 without giving any explanation of delay.

6. Clearly, the petition is barred by delay and laches. The petitioner has approached this Court after more than four years. There is no satisfactory explanation for laches and the delay in filing the petition on the part of the petitioner. Further third party rights have been entrenched. The law has long set its face against indolent litigants who approach this Court after a long delay.

7. The courts have consistently observed that delay and laches on part of the litigant will disentitle him to any relief. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law with clarity and observed it with consistency.

8. The line of authorities on this point are consistent and long. The discussion will benefit from the authorities in point.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R&M Trust vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and Others, 2005 (3) SCC 91 held thus:

“There is no doubt that delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We cannot disturb the third party interest created on account of delay. Even otherwise also why Court should come to rescue of person who is not vigilant of his rights.”

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service, AIR 1969 SC 329 held thus:

“Now the doctrine of laches in Courts