IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4088-2025 Date of decision :20.02.2025 Kulwinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL *****

Present: Mr. Pardeep Kumar Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

*****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondent to issue in appointment letter.

2. Petitioner pursuant to advertisement of 2011 applied for the Post of Constable in the State of Punjab in a District Police Cadre. He cleared written test and was called for interview held on 19.11.2011. He was not selected. He belongs to SC Category. He claims that a candidate belonging to another State has been selected under SC Category which was not permissible by law. The selection of said candidate needs to be cancelled and petitioner deserved to be offered appointment letter.

4. The selection process was initiated in 2011 and completed in 2013. A period of 12 years from the date of completion of selection process has passed away. The selection of alleged candidate may not be in accordance with law, however, petitioner at this belated cannot be offered appointment letter especially when he had applied for the post of Constable in Punjab Police. Physical and mental fitness are of paramount consideration in police force. No plausible reason for inordinate delay in approaching this Court has been advanced.

5. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non- deliberate delay.

6. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of action.

The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:

“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.

10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care a