NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Physical Education Lecturer in the light of high merit (72.125 marks) secured by him in the selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 21.10.2006 (Annexure P-1) and to grant the petitioner notional appointment, continuity of service and all consequential benefits (including seniority) with effect from the date candidates lower in merit to the petitioner were appointed, in terms of judgment of this Court dated 13.08.2008 passed in CWP-19688 of 2006 (Annexure P-4).

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.10.2006 (Annexure P-1), whereby 651 posts of Lecturers were advertised, out of which two were meant for SC (R&O) category, the petitioner applied under the SC(R&O) category. A final merit list was issued on 26.11.2006 (Annexure P-3), however, name of the petitioner did not figure in the said merit list. In the meanwhile, petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on contract basis, vide appointment letter dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure P-10), and subsequently, his services were regularised vide order dated 04.07.2019 (Annexure P-11). Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure P-13) seeking appointment to the post of Lecturer in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.10.2006 (Annexure P-1). It is further the case of the petitioner that denial of appointment to the post of Lecturer constitutes a continuing and recurring wrong, as persons lower in merit are continuing on the higher post. The petitioner also relies upon Government memorandum dated 29.12.2025 (Annexure P-14), whereby directions were issued for consideration of petitioner’s claim, however, no decision has been taken thereon by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and laches, as the petitioner has approached this Court after about 20 years from the conclusion of selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 21.10.2006. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already accepted appointment as Physical Education Teacher and his services were regularised thereafter, thus, no interference is warranted in this petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Admittedly, the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 21.10.2006 attained finality upon issuance of the final merit list dated 26.11.2006, whereas the petitioner has chosen to submit representation only on 12.12.2025 and thereafter filed the present writ petition on 30.04.2026, after an unexplained delay of about 19/20 years. In the interregnum, the petitioner not only accepted appointment as Physical Education Teacher on contractual basis, vide appointment letter dated 18.11.2010, but his services were also regularised, vide order dated 04.07.2019. The plea of continuing cause of action cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the challenge pertains to a concluded selection process which attained finality long ago. Mere pendency of representation or issuance of inter-departmental communication would not revive a stale and dead claim. Entertaining such a belated claim at this stage would unsettle settled rights and disturb the finality attached to the recruitment process.

6. 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 t