IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14586 of 2010 HC Brahamjit Vs. The State of Haryana & others Present: Mr.Minderjeet Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable and was promoted as Head Constable on adhoc basis under ORP policy on 13.7.2000. The persons, similarly situated, were regularised in the year 2003, when the case of the petitioner was also recommended for out of turn promotion on 5.8.2003. He, however, was not granted regular promotion. The petitioner had approached this court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.3812 of 2005, which was disposed of with a direction to decide his legal notice within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on 29.4.2005. The petitioner thereafter did not take any action till he has filed this petition on 13.8.2010. The petitioner was granted time to explain the delay in making the present approach. Except for making reference to judgment in the case of Rattan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana, 1995(1) S.C.T. 711, the counsel has not urged anything to explain the delay. Undoubtedly, the rule to deny relief to a person, who has filed a petition after lapse of long time, is a rule evolved by the Courts and it is not based on any legislation enactment. It may also be true that it is a rule of self-imposed limitation innovated by the Courts for not issuing orders which would unsettle the settled issues. While passing such orders, third party rights may also have to be kept in view to see if they are adversely affected in any manner or not. Still, this rule cannot apply in each and every case irrespective of the nature of the claim made. As held in Rattan Singh's case (supra), Civil Writ Petition No.14586 of 2010 : 2 : no strait-jecket formula or wooden rule can be applied for declining the relief to the petitioner, who has approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Each case is required to be scrutinised on the basis of relevant facts determining as to whether it will be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction in favour of the person concerned. Since no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming to explain the delay of over five years in making the approach, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is so ordered. August 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE