JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

''(a) That, Order vide Annexure P-1 dt. 24-03-2020 may kindly be quashed.

(b) That, Respondents may kindly be directed to consider appeal for Review Medical on Merit as per rules for consideration of Medical Certificate and issue Letter of Selection and Posting, for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Force (CAPE), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination-2018, in favour of Petitioner.

(c) Cost of petition may kindly be allowed.''

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Force(CAPE), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination-2018. The written examination was conducted on 21/02/2019 and the petitioner was found qualified for further physical examination which he passed on 30/08/2019. Subsequently, the result of Medical Examination was declared on 08/02/2020 and the petitioner was found unfit due to defect of Hemorrhoids. It is submitted that Hemorrhoids is not a defect for making the petitioner unfit and it was a result of earlier dental surgery and was perfect at the time of examination but no explanation was asked by the respondents. The petitioner filed an appeal in a prescribed format along with Medical Certificate of Dr. Sharma, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Morar, District Gwalior who opined that the petitioner had no defect. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that ''due to specialist's certificate not enclosed''. It is submitted that similarly situated persons had filed writ petitions which were registered as WP No. 8692/2020 [Aditya Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others) and other connected Writ Petitions and the same were allowed by order dated 08/10/2020. The writ appeals have also been dismissed and the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by the Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India that not only the examinations are over, but the petition suffers from delay and laches.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Undisputedly, the claim of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 24/03/2020 whereas this petition has been filed on 08/03/2021.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of UP Jal Nigam and Another vs. Jaswant Singh and Another, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 464 has held as under:-

''7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to various decisions to impress upon that persons who are guilty of such laches and acquiesced with the situation should not be granted any relief because it is going to cost the Nigam a heavy financial burden to the tune of Rs. 17,80,43,108/-. Therefore, relief should be confined to those persons who were continuing in service and filed their writ petitions in time but not to all and sundry who woke up to file the writ petitions much after their retirement. In this connection, our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in the case of Rup Diamonds v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 356, wherein their Lordships observed that those people who were sitting on the fence till somebody else took up the matter to the court for refund of duty, cannot be given the benefit. In that context, their Lordships held as follows :(SCC pp. 356-57)

"Petitioners are re-agitating claims which they had not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided. Their case cannot be considered on the analogy of one where a law had been declared unconstitutional and void by a court, so as to enable persons to recover monies paid under the compulsion of a law later so declared void. There is also an unexplained, inordinate delay in preferring the present writ petition which is brought after a year after the first rejection. As observed by the Court in Durga P