129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.11.2025 Lovely Dhiman and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners (through V.C).

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present Civil Writ Petition has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of Assistant Lineman as advertised vide CRA-289/16, and for quashing of the impugned speaking order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-16) whereby their representation stood rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Corporation issued Advertisement CRA-289/16 for the post of Assistant Lineman. The petitioners applied under the general category. The selection was to be made purely on merit based on marks obtained in the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Lineman trade. A note in the advertisement provided preference to candidates who had completed their apprenticeship from PSPCL/PSTCL or erstwhile PSEB. The petitioners, who had completed their apprenticeship from the State of Haryana, were not appointed, though candidates with lower merit were appointed. The petitioners approached this Court by way of CWP-15029- 2025, which was disposed of on 23.05.2025 with a direction to the respondents to decide their representation. The representation has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 07.07.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners are higher in merit than the appointed candidates and their non- appointment is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He places reliance on the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-24773-2018 titled as Harish Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., decided on 27.04.2023, wherein the similarly situated petitioners were granted relief. He further submits that the preference clause in the advertisement would apply only when two candidates are equal in merit and cannot override the merit-based selection process.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record with his able assistance.

5. A bare perusal of the paper book reveals that the advertisement in question (CRA-289/16) was issued in the year 2016. The selection process was completed and the result was declared in the year 2018. The petitioners did not challenge their non-appointment at that time. The issue of interpretation of the preference clause was agitated before this Court in CWP-24773-2018 (Harish Kumar & Anr.), which was filed in the year 2018 when the selection process was ongoing and was allowed in the year 2023. The present petitioners, however, remained indolent throughout this period and chose to wake from their slumber only after a favourable order was passed in the case of similarly situated persons. They filed a representation for the first time in December 2024 and then approached this Court after its rejection. The discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to assist those who are negligent, inactive, or dilatory in asserting their rights.

6. The issue of delay and laches is not a mere technicality but a salutary principle founded on sound public policy. A Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. vs. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, held as under:

“16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exerc