IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT

th

ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6815 of 2026 MAHESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vivek Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Pramod Kumar Chaurasia - Government Advocate for the State.

ORDER Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer that petitioner may be given the benefit of order passed in case of Smita Shrivastava Vs State of M.P. and Others by Apex Court. In said case, petitioner qualified examination of Contract Teacher Class-III. Despite passing examination, petitioner was not given appointment.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that case of petitioner is identical to that of Smita Shrivastava (supra). Petitioner has also qualified the examination of Contract Teacher Class-III. Despite passing petitioner was not given appointment, therefore, representation of petitioner may be considered and decided in light of judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Smita Shrivastava (supra). 3. Heard the counsel for petitioner.

4. Apex Court in case of Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and Others reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 318 in paragraph No.9 and 11 has held as under:-

"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.

11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. This Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 has held to the following effect:

56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226