IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 21.04.2025 MANDEEP SINGH ….Appellant versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present:- Mr. Gurjit S. Latheri, Advocate for the appellant.

*****

SUDHIR SINGH, J. CM-2750-LPA-2025 Allowed as prayed for.

CM-2751-LPA-2025 For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed.

Delay of 724 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA-1116-2025 Challenge in the instant intra Court appeal is to the order dated

17.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

2. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had sought quashing of the order dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure P-17 with the writ petition), whereby the representation of the appellant was consigned to the records.

3. As would appear from the facts of the case as noticed in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant claimed relief in the writ petition as regards the recruitment process for appointment of Teachers on the consolidated pay, initiated by the Competent Authority under the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan, vide recruitment notice dated 07.01.2010. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellant kept sleeping over the matter till 2022, when for the first time he had submitted representation which was rejected by the concerned authorities and it was for this reason that the learned Single Judge declined to interfere into the matter and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.

4. It is settled law that the delay is genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. It is further settled that the delay disentitles a party to the discretionary relief under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If a litigant keeps sleeping over his rights for a long period and wakes up when he does have an impetus either from the judicial verdict of the Court or otherwise, such litigant is not entitled to any relief. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25 has held as under:-

“Delay, laches and acquiescence

20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non-consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the court than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the court.

Laches

21. The word “laches” is derived from the French language meaning “remissness and slackness”. It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy.

22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By