Delay and laches in filing writ petitions challenging selection processes, which were finalized years earlier, disentitles petitioners from discretionary relief, especially when no explanation for the delay is provided.

JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. By way of this judgment, aforementioned 24 writ petitions are being disposed of as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CWP No.311 of 2018 titled as Satwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others .

2. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the result of general category candidates as well as backward class category for the post of Clerks (Annexure P-6). Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to appoint the candidates of backward class under general category, who have attained more marks than the last selected general category candidates, and appointment of respondents No.3 and 4 be quashed and the petitioner be appointed against the said posts as petitioner is having higher merit than respondents No.3 and 4.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2- Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, issued Advertisement No.02/2013, inviting online applications for recruitment to 1192 posts of Clerks in different departments under Punjab Government. The break-up/distribution of vacancies i.e. General, Scheduled Castes, Backward Class, Ex-Service Men, Physically Handicapped, Sports Persons and Freedom Fighters was indicated in the advertisement. Essential qualification was also prescribed under Clause 4 of the advertisement. Clause 12 regulated the selection procedure and under which merit of the candidates, who qualify the Punjabi Type Test was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in graduation. The petitioner belonging to the Backward Class category and claiming to be eligible in terms of possessing the essential qualification prescribed for the post of Clerk, applied for the same and appeared in the Punjabi Type Test, the result of which was declared on 26.5.2014. Petitioner is stated to have qualified the Type Test and thereafter, participated in counselling process as per counselling schedule and the petitioner’s merit, assessed on the basis of graduation marks, was 52.50%. Thereafter, as per criteria mentioned in clause 12 of the advertisement governing selection procedure, merit of the candidates was prepared on the basis of marks obtained in graduation and a select list was uploaded by the Subordinate Services Selection Board on its website on 26.6.2014 (Annexure P-7). It is the case of the petitioner that merit of general category candidates started from 85.51 and came upto 47.54, whereas the merit of backward class candidates started from 88.71 and came upto 54.25, thus, all the candidates of backward class category secured more marks than the last candidate of general category, therefore, they are liable to be considered under the general category. Therefore, petitioner being fully eligible to be selected for the post of Clerk approached respondent No.2 in July, 2014 for redressal of his grievance, but to no avail.

Thereafter, some of the similarly situated persons approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.12618 of 2014 – (Parminder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) and connected writ petitions, which have been allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2017 by directing the respondents to grant appointments only to the petitioners therein belonging to B.C. category, who agitated the issue. Present petitioner has approached this Court for selection to the post of Clerk in terms of judgment rendered in CWP No.12618 of 2014.

4. Pursuant to notice of motion, respondents No.1 and 2 have filed