IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 19549 of 2021 RAHUL SINGH GURJAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Arun Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dharmendra Nayak - GA for the State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to decide his application (Annexure P/1) and to consider his case for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver).

2. It is gathered from the record that the petitioner participated in the Constable Recruitment Process of the year 2013 and was selected for appointment. However, since he furnished incorrect information regarding his marital status in the declaration form, the appointment order was not issued in his favour. It is stated in the reply that the validity of the select list expired on 27.05.2015. It is further evident that vide communication dated 18.03.2016 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner was informed about his ineligibility for appointment and the proceedings were closed.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the rule requiring declaration of marital status was deleted from statute book 24.05.2013 and, therefore, even if the petitioner has declared his incorrect marital status, the same would be inconsequential. Regarding expiry of validity of select list, he submitted that after when the petitioner was informed about his non- appointment on 18.03.2016, he had three years period for filing of petition. However, thereafter the lockdown was imposed because of COVID-19 pandemic. The petition was filed during pandemic. He, therefore, submitted that there is no delay on the part of petitioner in filing the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that the recruitment process has already been concluded and, therefore, no indulgence can be shown in favour of petitioner. He also submitted that one, the validity of select list expires, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise his claim for appointment on the post in question. He also submitted that there is no explanation given for the delay of more than 5 years in raising the claim. He thus prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

5. Considered the arguments and perused the records.

6. Even though the validity of the select list expired on 27.05.2015 and the petitioner was informed of his non-selection on 18.03.2016, the present petition was filed on 15.09.2021, and no explanation whatsoever has been offered for this delay. On the contrary, it has been stated in the writ petition that there is no delay. The submission of learned petitioner's counsel that the petitioner had three years limitation for filing the writ petition is not acceptable. It is a known fact that there is no limitation prescribed for filing writ petition. There may be cases where the delay of years is condonable based on facts of the case. On the other hand, there may be cases where the delay of few months may not be condonable. In the case in hand, during the intervening of five years, when the petitioner was sleeping over his rights, there are other persons who may have been appointed on the post in question.

7. The Apex Court has considered the effect of delay and laches in service matters in the case of SBI v. M.J. James reported in (2022)2 SCC

301. The Court held as under:

"36. What is a reasonable time is not to be put in a straitjacket formula or judicially codified in the form of days, etc. as it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. A right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Doctrine of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non-suit the litigants who approach the court/appellate authorities belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after unreasonable delay. In the present case, challenge to the order of dismissal from service by way of appeal was after four years and five months, wh