The court found that unjustifiable delay in filing a writ petition undermines the legitimacy of the claim, reinforcing the doctrine of delay and laches.

ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:

“8 (A) xxx xxx xxx (B)Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction quashing the impugned termination order being PTC/GENERAL/163/1261 dated 23.11.2004 and further be pleased to direct respondent to grant posting to the petitioner along with consequential benefits (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay execution, operation and implementation of termination order being PTC/GENERAL/163/1261 dated 23.11.2004 and further be pleased to issue directions directing respondent to grant posting to the petitioner at the post of Vidhya Sahayak.

(D) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of para (C) above may kindly be granted.”

2. The prayers indicate that the termination order dated 23.11.2004 is sought to be challenged after a period of 18 years by filing the writ petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was illegally terminated.

4. On a specific query raised by this Court with regard to delay in filing the writ petition, neither any satisfactory reply has been given by the learned advocate Mr.Bhamre nor it is explained in the writ petition. In the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu , 2014 (4) S.C.C. 108, the Apex Court, while examining the issue of delay and latches in filing the writ petition, has observed thus :

“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to