IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8134 of 2008 MD.PARVEZ ALAM . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . with CWJC No.9276 of 2009 MD.EKRAM . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 03/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners were applicants for the post of assistant translator under Advertisement No.18.1.1990. Their names came to be recommended along with certain others on 18.10.1997/3.6.1998. Those who were aggrieved by non-appointment, with the exception of the petitioners, came to this Court in time in C.W.J.C. No.7074/99 which came to be allowed culminating in an appeal, contempt proceedings etc. leading to their appointments in the year-2006. The primary ground on which this writ petition is based is to be accorded similar treatment as those who came to this Court in time in C.W.J.C. No.7074/99. The writ petition alleges that the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. There is no pleading in the writ application why the petitioners did not pursue their remedies in time and opted to do 2 what has generally been described as “fence sitting”. The petitioners have themselves to blame. In (2007) 2 S.C.C. 725 (A.P. STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LTD. Versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS) it has been held at paragraph-40 that: “ The benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ petition, the High Court is entitled to consider the fact situation obtaining in each case including the conduct of the petitioner. In doing so, the Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the writ petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then wake up after the decision of this Court. If it is found that the appellant approached the Court after a long delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief. (See Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh) (2006) 11 SCC 464: (2006) 12 Scale 347).” Similar is the view taken in (2009) 2 S.C.C. 479 (S.S. BALU AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS) at paragraph-17: “ It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”. The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the 3 State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. In NDMC v. Pan Singh (2007)9 SCC 278: (2007) 2 scc (L & S) 398 this Court held: (SCC p.283 para 16)” There is no merit in these applications. They are accordingly dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)