The High Court may refuse to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases involving inordinate, unexplained delay (laches), particularly when the claim seeks to reopen settled matters or is based on belatedly asserted rights after the applicant has remained dormant.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (Oral)

1. This order shall dispose of both the above-said writ petitions, as common question of law and facts are involved for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-17556-2026.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide his claim for appointment on the post of Clerk in terms of order dated 19.05.2025, passed by this Court in CWP-13870-2016 titled as ‘Jaswinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others’, which was disposed of in terms of judgment rendered in LPA-1843-2019 titled as ‘State of Punjab & another Vs. Karamjeet Kaur’ and further seeking all consequential benefits arising from it.

3. Brief facts of the case, as have been stated in the petition, are that the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, issued Advertisement No.2 of 2013 for recruitment of 1192 posts of Clerks. The petitioner, being eligible and holder of degree from Deemed University, applied for the said posts and successfully qualified the Punjabi Type Test conducted in the months of November/December, 2013. His name appeared in the list of qualified candidates published on 26.05.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for counselling along with original documents, however, the respondents withheld his candidature on the ground that his degree obtained from the Deemed University was required to be verified under UGC guidelines. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, vide order dated 17.03.2015, solely on the ground that he had obtained degree from Deemed University.

4. As per the averments made in the writ petition itself, the selection process was finalized in the year 2015 and the instant writ petition has been filed in the year 2026 i.e. after a delay of 11 years. The reliance placed by the petitioner upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in Jaswinder Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case, as the said advertisement relates to the posts of Masters and there was no delay in the said case, as the said case was filed in the year 2016 and was decided in the year 2025. Since there is an undue and unexplained delay in approaching this Court, therefore, the instant petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid Padvekar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary and others : 2009 (2) SCT 24, while referring to the issue of delay and laches, had held as follows:-

“8. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’). In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (AIR 1970 Supreme Court 769). Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.

9. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Prosper Armstrong Hurde etc., (1874) 5 PC 221 at page 239 was approved by this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Courts, (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1450) and Maharashtra State Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service (AIR 1969 Supr