Delay and laches in pursuing writ petitions bar relief despite the absence of direct applicability of Limitation Act, highlighting the need for timely action.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE WRIT PETITION No. 2650 of 2015 RAJEEV RATHORE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri MPS Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri D.S.

Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the respondent No.6.

Shri B.M. Patel - Govt. Advocate for the State.

RESERVED ON : 09/07/2025 DELIVERED ON : 18/7/2025 ORDER The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 11.12.2007 and 13.10.2008; whereby, prayer for his appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-3, had been declined and less meritorious incumbents i.e. respondents No.5 to 7 were given appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-3, after awarding 20 marks of D.Ed. examination. 2. From the record, it transpires that the petitioner being qualified M.P.

Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-3, Test 2005 and secured 53.04 marks, applied for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak, Grade -3, but the petitioner was not appointed nor any intimation for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III, for which applications were invited in the year 2007, was given to him. Only selected candidates including private respondents having forged documents, who submitted their applications showing them trained to have qualified B.T./B.Ed/D.Ed. examination, were permitted by the Selecting Authority to take part in the examination.When the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he alongwith one Mansingh Rawat challenged the selection process appointing private respondents by way of filling an appeal before the Collector which was registered as Case No.48/2006- 2007/Appeal. Vide order dated 11.12.2007, the said appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Gwalior. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the other person Man Singh had preferred a Revision No.313/007-008 before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior which was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2008. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition has been filed on 30.04.2015 seeking following reliefs:

"7.1 That, the impugned order passed by the appellate authorities Annexure P/I & P/4 may kindly be quashed. 7.2 That, the selection of the private respondents may kindly be declare illegal and declaring the whole selection void fresh selection may kindly be ordered considering the case of petitioner for selection & appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg-3, within a stipulated period of

3 months.

7.3 That, any other relief doing Justice into the matter including cost of petition, advocate fee etc. may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

3. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner had suffered a rejection order dated 11.12.2007, but did not care to challenge the same with quite promptitude. The Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in 2011 (3) SCC 436 had categorically laid down that where litigant is sleeping tight over his rights and wakes from the deep slumber after a long period (the petitioner has filed present petition with a delay of approximately 7-8 years), such litigant deserves no sympathy and the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The relevant Paragraphs No.52, 53 and 54 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted herein below:

"52. In the very first appeal, the respondent filed Writ Petition on 11.11.2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6.10.1989 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 without furnishing any explanation for such inordinate delay and on latches on her part. Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963, makes it obligatory on the part of the court to dismiss the Suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period even