1. Through the medium of instant petition, petitioner seeks quashment of appointment orders of private respondents 5 to 26 with further direction to respondents to appoint him against the Class-IV post, on the analogy of private respondents, from the date they have been appointed and may also release all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that, the official respondents initiated the process of engagement of candidates against class-IV vacancies on temporary basis in the year 2011. It is submitted that the petitioner being educated upto 11th standard and also possessing a valid Driving License issued by the competent authority besides having Diploma of 06 months in Computer Applications, applied to the concerned authority on 01.12.2011 and after endorsement, handed over the application to the respondent no.3.

3. It is submitted that no receipt was issued against the said application to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner being downtrodden, may also get the benefit of ST category, in this regard number of representations have been filed from time to time.

4. It is submitted that the respondents resorted to make appointments on pick and choose method arbitrarily and without any selection process. It is submitted that the petitioner was constrained to file an application under J&K Right to Information Act in the year 2013. It is also submitted that the petitioner was provided the list of incumbents appointed against the class-IV vacancies from 2011 to 2013. It is further submitted that the respondents have done the exercise of such appointments without following due procedure of law.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved of the appointments of private respondents and also for not considering him against the class-IV post, challenged the same on the grounds detailed out in the petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the matter and perused the records.

7. When asked Mr. J. A Kawoosa, learned counsel for petitioner, how the writ petition is maintainable which is hopelessly time barred besides being not entitled to the relief claimed. Learned counsel for strengthening his argument has referred to and relied upon case titled “Pankaj Gupta and ors v. State of J&K and ors” reported in (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 353 and LPA no. 117/2015 titled “Mahajabeen Bano v. State and ors”. The judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are entirely distinguishable, therefore, are not attracted to the case in hand.

8. Delay and laches on the part of a petitioner may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to private respondents. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Even equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. Even though there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. An order should normally be challenged within a period of six months or at the most in a year. Though, it is not a strict rule the courts can always interfere even subsequent thereto, but relief to a person, who allows things to happen and then approach the court and puts forward a stale claim and try to unsettle settled matters, can certainly be refused on account of delay and laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer. An employee, who sleeps like Rip Van Winkle and got up from slumber at his own leisure, deserves to be denied the relief on account of delay and laches.

9. In State of T. N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137, the Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus:—

“... filing of representations alone would not sa