IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 798 of 2011 Rakesh Kumar ………….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……...Respondents. Present : Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Brief facts of the case are that in 2002, the appointment was not given to the petitioner because the qualification of the petitioner was not thought to be sufficient. Other persons who were similarly situated as the present petitioner though filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 477 of 2003 (S/S) Adarsh Kumar and other Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. They succeeded in their writ petition. The matter was contested by the State Government by filing a Special Appeal, which was also dismissed on 9.3.2006. Consequently, State moved to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which after grant of leave was rejected on merits on 1.7.2010. Thereafter, State having no option, appointed those petitioners as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade in the year 2010. Getting wiser due to these developments some similarly situated persons filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2010 (S/S), which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1.12.2010. 2 Against this order, the State went in Special Appeal being Special Appeal No. 68 of 2011. This Special Appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26.4.2011 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.12.2010 was set aside. The Division Bench, in the Special Appeal refused to grant parity to the petitioners as it was given to the earlier petitioners for the reasons thus stated in its order dated 26.4.2011:- “4. The facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, are that an advertisement was published on 24th June, 2002, inviting applications for filling up posts of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade Hindi (Language). In terms of the Rules then prevalent, a person having other requisite qualifications was entitled to quality point, if he has a Post Graduation. The then Rules did not indicate that Post Graduation must be in the subject for which the person is to be appointed as Assistant Teacher to teach the said subject. 5. Respondent had Post Graduation in Sanskrit. He responded to the said advertisement and later came to learn that he has not been awarded quality points for his Post Graduation. The respondent, however, despite such knowledge, did not take any action. One Adarsh Kumar and some others, who also had Post Graduation in Sanskrit and who also responded to the said advertisement, were dealt with similarly. Adarsh Kumar and others, by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 477 of 2003 (S/S), challenged such treatment and succeeded. The matter travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the matter in 2010, in so far as the contentions of Adarsh Kumar and others are concerned, reached finality. Subsequently, some of them were appointed after according them quality points. When the petitioner / respondent came to learn that Adarsh Kumar and others have succeeded and such success has earned them quality points and consequential appointment, respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1124 of 2010 (S/S). Since there is no distinction in between the claims and contentions of Adarsh Kumar and others on the one hand and the petitioner / respondent on the other, a learned Single Judge, while dealing with the writ petition, 3 granted the same relief as was granted to Adarsh Kumar and others. 6. In the present appeal, appellants are contending that the respondent was sitting on the fence and he approached this Court to take advantage of the success of Adarsh Kumar and others after expiry of 7 years from the date of accrual of his cause of action. It is true that the respondent was inappropriately dealth with in the same manner as Adarsh Kumar and others were dealt with. By reason of such dealings, the right of the respondent as well as the rights of Adarsh Kumar and others were unjustly interfered with. Adarsh Kumar and others did not sleep over the matter. They took such recourse to law as was available to them to challenge the action on the part of the appellants in defeating their otherwise recognized legal rights. The respondent, however, at that stage, did not take recourse to law as was available to challenge the action by which the legal right of the respondent was defeated by the appellants. Respondent approached the Court at such a belated stae when his cause of action, pertaining to interference with his legal right, was not surviving or even if surviving, was not enforceable by taking recourse to ordinary remedy available under law. The respondent did not approach the Court even after noticing the initial success of Adarsh Kumar and others, which they obtained in 2004. Even at that stage, respondent was not confident as to whether the said success of Adarsh Kumar and others is long lasting or not. The respondent approached this Court only being assured in 2010 that the success of Adarsh Kumar and others is long lasting, but by that time, as above, he permitted his cause of action to die. 7. It is true that the principle of limitation do not apply, in strict sense, to writ jurisdiction, but what is not available by way of ordinary remedy should not normally be granted in course of an extraordinary remedy, unless special equity is in favour of the person seeking such remedy. A person, who is not confident about his claim, which is demonstrated by his conduct of not taking appropriate action within a reasonable time, and approaches the Court only on the success of others, has no special equity in his favour. 8. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order under appeal.” 4 The petitioner before this Court is on the same footing to the ones whose claim has been rejected by the Division Bench as stated above. The petitioner also claims appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) after an inordinate delay. It is a settled principle of law that those who sleep over their rights, Court will not come for their rescue. The petitioner slept over his right for a long time and only when similarly situated person got relief from the Court, he has raised the issue regarding his appointment. This writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground, as stated above, as there has been an inordinate delay by the petitioner in approaching this Court. The writ petition is therefore dismissed in terms of decision dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 68 of 2011. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 25.7.2011 Rathour