The court's decision was influenced by the principles of delay and laches, which led to the dismissal of the petition.

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of private respondent Nos. 5 and 6, as Para Teachers/EGS Guides, in village Lower Dharana, teshil Mendhar, district Poonch.

2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to notification dt. 10th of July' 03, issued by the official respondents, the petitioner along with other eligible candi#31;dates submitted his application for consideration for appointment against the post of Para Teacher/EGS Guide.

3. Pursuant to the receipt of applications, the Zonal Education Officer, Mendhar, prepared a merit panel of 54 candidates wherein the name of the peti#31;tioner figured at SI.No.20.

4. Counsel for the petitioner urged that even when the petitioner was more qualified and meritorious than the private respondents, who are possessed of 10+2 qualification only, and were inferior in merit, the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment and the said private respondents were appointed illegally. To buttress the case of the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner referred to a report submitted by the Zonal Education Officer, Mendhar, to the Chief Education Officer, Poonch, dated 14th of Oct'08, in which report the Zonal Education Officer, has reported that the candidates were engaged as ReT/Para Teachers/EGS in Session 2004-05, ignoring the better claim of the petitioner, who was having Bachelor's Degree in Science. Reference has also been drawn to a letter No. CEO/P/2875-76 dated Nil Nov'08, whereby the Chief Education Officer, Poonch, has forwarded the report to the State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, for necessary action.

5. From the records, it appears that the petitioner was, in fact, more meritorious than the selected candidates i.e. private respondents 5 and 6. Yet the issue is whether for an appointment made in regard to private respondents 5 and 6 for the session 2004-05, this court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction despite there being considerable delay in filing the present writ petition.

6. In Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598, the Apex Court held as under:-

"The rule which says that the Court may not enquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. It will all depend upon what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how delay arose. The principle on which the relief to the party on the grounds of laches or delay is denied is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The real test to determine delay in such cases is that the petitioner should come to the writ court before a parallel right is created and that the lapse of time is not attributable to any laches or negligence. The test is not as to physical running of time. Where the circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches."

7. In Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and others, (1975) 4 SCC 714, the Apex court in paragraph 16 of the judgment, has held as under:-

"..................If a petitioner has been so remiss or negligent as to approach the Court for relief after an inordinate and unexplained delay, he certainly jeopardizes his claims as it may become inequitable, with circumstances altered by lapse of time and other facts, to enforce a fundamental right to the detriment of the similar claims of innocent third persons."

8. The Apex Court, yet in another case reported as Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar and others, (2011) 5 SCC 607, in paragraph 54 of the judgment, laid down as under:-

"The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approache

Click Here to Read the rest of this document