Delay in pursuing legal claims can result in dismissal due to latches and acquiescence principles, as established in the judgment and relevant case law.

ORDER

1. The prayer clause 9(A), 9(B), 9(C), and 9(D), which are incorporated as under suggest that the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 16.06.2001 passed by the respondent No.4, wherein and whereby the appointment order of the petitioner, to the post of Constable, has been rejected in view of the deficiency in vision and colour blindness, after period of almost 21 years.

“9(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 16/6/2001 passed by the respondent no. 4 (B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Unarmed Police Constable with effect from the date of selection list as other similarly situated candidates have been given appointment, (C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to initiate proceedings for giving appointment to the petitioner as Unarmed Police Constable with effect from the date of selection list as other similarly situated candidates have been given appointment, (D) To grant any such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”

2. Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement dated 02.11.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1136 of 2018 by the Division Bench, whereby delay of nine years has been considered.

3. At the outset, learned AGP has placed reliance on the order dated 27.11.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.1813 of 2019 in support of his submission that the writ petition is barred by delay. The said order is also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.02.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.131 of 2020.

4. The issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.02.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.131 of 2020. The Division bench in an identical set of facts in the case of Lok Rakshak, who challenged his non- appointment to the post of Lor Rakshak due to colour blindness after a delay of 10 years, has held thus:

“3. We have heard Shri Tushar L. Sheth, learned counsel appearing for Shri Ankit Shah, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sheth has submitted that in an identical situation, various courts have directed the authorities to release the appointment by not treating the colour blindness as an ineligibility. Hence, the appellant may not be discriminated against. It has been submitted that appellant being the resident of a rural area, was unaware of judgments by virtue of which several candidates have been considered for appointment, having similar disease. The action of the respondent authority is not on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in taking too technical view in the matter and has given undue weightage to the delay aspect. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be correct. No other submissions have been made.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and gone through the material on record, it stands undisputed that the learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out the reasons that prevented the appellant from approaching the Court or the appropriate authority at the very moment when he was not considered for appointment, which was back in 2009. We have found that the original advertisement was published on 23.5.2007 for the post in question and during the process of medical examination,