A service-related claim brought after inordinate and unexplained delay is liable to be dismissed under the doctrine of laches and acquiescence, as the court will not entertain stale claims that have attained finality, particularly when the petitioner's conduct indicates abandonment of rights.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider claim/representation of the petitioners for reinstatement and to take decision on reinstatement in view of subsequent development i.e. order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge and further direction may be issued for reinstatement of the petitioners with all consequential benefit within stipulated time, in the interest of justice.

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I & II vide order dated 22.7.1998. Subsequently, the order of appointment was cancelled by respondent No.3 (the Commissioner, Division Jagdalpur) vide order dated 11.10.1999 in suo moto Revision Case No.8/A-89-A/1998-99 on the grounds that the documents placed before the Selection Committee were manipulated. A criminal case was also registered against the petitioners and later on, they were acquitted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as no criminal case is currently pending and since the appointment orders were cancelled without affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, they should be permitted to submit representations to the authorities.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. They would submit that the petitioners were appointed on 22.7.1998 and their appointments were cancelled by the Commissioner, Jagdalpur Division, vide order dated 11.10.1999. He would submit that this petition has been filed in the year 2022 but the order of cancellation of their appointment has not been assailed. They would submit that the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondent authorities to decide their pending representation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.

6. A perusal of the documents would show that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1998 and their appointments were cancelled on 11.10.1999. Despite this, the petitioners filed the instant petition in the year 2022. In para 7, it is stated that there is no delay in filing the instant petition.

7. Admittedly, this writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 883, held in para 21 as under:-

“21. Profitably, we may reproduce relevant passages from certain decisions of this Court:

(A) Union of India v Tarsem Singh , (2008) 8 SCC 648:

“To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it do