JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to depute her for Upper School Course as well as grant deemed promotion as Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector in Intelligence Wing of Punjab Police. She also seeks direction to decide her legal notice dated 16.10.2025.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 23.06.1992. She was granted rank of Adhoc Head Constable in 2003. She was promoted as Head Constable on 01.12.2014 on completing the Lower School Course in 2014. She was further promoted as ASI on 02.08.2021 on completing Intermediate School Course (‘ISC’) in 2021. She claims that her junior was deputed for Lower School Course (‘LSC’) in 2012 and was subsequently promoted as Head Constable in 2013. Her junior was further deputed for ISC in 2014 and was promoted as ASI in the same year. She served a representation in September’ 2016 to consider her case for promotion vis-à-vis her junior. Her junior was further deputed for Upper School Course (‘USC’) in 2021 and promoted as Sub Inspector but she has not been deputed for USC till date. Her junior has been promoted in contravention to Rule 13.1(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. She has served legal notice dated 16.10.2025 upon the respondent for deemed promotion as well as to depute her to undergo USC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked to explain reason of inordinate delay in approaching this Court submits that seniority is a continuing cause. The petitioner was discriminated in 2013 and thereafter in 2016 as well as 2021.

4. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in ‘Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others’ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:

“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to dri