IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CWP No.11882 of 2024 Date of Decision:07.02.2025 Satnam Singh .....Pe++oner Vs.

State of Punjab and ors. .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate for the pe oner.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab ***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this pe on filed under Ar cles 226/227 of the Cons tu on of India, pe oner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of cer orari for quashing the selec on dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure P.12), vide which respondents No.3 to 15 have been selected for the post of Smith duly adver sed by the respondent on contract basis.

2 It is contended that pursuant to the adver sement Annexure P.1, pe oner applied for the post of Smith and was issued iden ty card. He appeared in the wri:en examina on and passed the same. He was put in the selected roll numbers as per Annexure P5. The eligible candidates were then called for the examina on of physical / prac cal test but name of the pe oner did not figure therein as per Annexure P6. As pe oner came to know about the said fact, he approached the respondents but they did not give any sa sfactory reply. Pe oner approached this Court by filing CWP No.12395/2015, which was allowed on 12.06.2015 vide Annexure P.7, whereby respondents were directed to permit the pe oner to appear in the physical test to be held on 15.06.2015 but making it clear that it will not confer any right to claim appointment. It is contended that pe oner then par cipated in the physical test but was held to be not en tled for selec on, as he had passed diploma of ITI in the trade of Carpenter, whereas the requisite qualifica on was diploma in ITI in the trade of Motor Vehicle Body Builder. The selec on list was finalised and respondents No.3 to 15 were selected. Learned counsel contends that he has been held to be not suitable only for passing ITI in different trade.

3. On advance no ce, Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab, appears on behalf of the respondent- State.

4. As rightly pointed out by learned State Counsel that pe oner is assailing the selec on dated 18.09.2015 by approaching this Court by way of this pe on filed in April, 2024 i.e. aBer more than 08 years.

5. Learned counsel for the pe oner is unable to explain this inordinate delay in approaching the Court so as to challenge the selec on of respondents No.3 to 15.

6. Thus, pe on is evidently hit by the principles of long delay and latches. For filing of a writ pe on under Ar cles 226 of the Indian Cons tu on, there is no strict statute of limita on. However, this does not mean that delays are en rely overlooked. The courts apply the principles of delay and latches to determine the reasonableness of the delay in filing such a pe on. In this regard, courts have significant discre on to decide whether a delay is unreasonable. They consider factors such as the jus fica on for the delay, poten al prejudice to the opposing party, and the public interest involved. Delays are more likely to be overlooked if the issue pertains to public interest or affects a large number of people. If the delay is deemed unreasonable and causes prejudice to the other party, or if the pe oner has acquiesced to the situa on, the court may dismiss the pe on.

7. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 2271, Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed as under:

“A person aggrieved by an order of promo ng a junior over his bead should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promo on. It is not that 'here is any period of limita on for the Courts to exercise their powers under Ar cle 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a ma:er aBer the passage of a certain length of me. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discre on for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-

ordinary powers under Ar cle 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expedi ously for relief and who stand by