_____________________________________________________________________________________________ WPC No.3249/2010 and WPC No.3250/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on : 12.05.2010 % Date of decision : 21.05.2010 + WP (C) No.3249/2010 ARVIND KUMAR …… … … …PETITIONER Through : Mr.V.Shekhar, Sr.Adv. with Mr.S.Ganesh, Ms.D.Jain and Mr.Jatin Rajput, Advocates - V E R S U S - HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. … … … RESPONDENTS Through : Mr.Viraj R.Datar, Adv. for R-1. Ms.Zubeda Begum, Adv. for R-2 AND + WP (C) No.3250/2010 MOHIT SONDHI …… … … …PETITIONER Through : Mr.V.Shekhar, Sr.Adv. with Mr.S.Ganesh, Ms.D.Jain and Mr.Jatin Rajput, Advocates - V E R S U S - HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. … … … RESPONDENTS Through : Mr.Viraj R.Datar, Adv. for R-1. Ms.Zubeda Begum, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO To be referred to Reporter or not? NO _____________________________________________________________________________________________ WPC No.3249/2010 and WPC No.3250/2010 Page 2 of 3 Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. These two writ petitions were filed only on 10.05.2010 in respect of the recruitment process started in 2008 which was completed by declaration of results in May 2009, in respect of Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2008. The candidates already stand appointed in July and September, 2009. 2. The case of the petitioners is predicated on the same plea as raised in WP(C) No.10787/2009. These matters were heard along with the said petition on the same grounds subject to the plea raised by learned counsel for the respondents of delay and laches in these two petitions. The said writ petition being WP(C) No.10787/2009 has been dismissed by a separate order pronounced by us today and thus these two writ petitions would also not survive on merits. 3. We would like to note that in these two cases, the further impediment in the way of the petitioners is inordinate delay and laches in approaching the court. This aspect has been discussed in WP(C) No.10787/2009 and applies with much more force in the present cases where the petitioners have further slept over the matters from May, 2009 to May, 2010 for a period of one year during which time the process of recruitment for Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2009 has already _____________________________________________________________________________________________ WPC No.3249/2010 and WPC No.3250/2010 Page 3 of 3 commenced, substantially proceeded ahead, preliminary examination held and results declared with the main examination scheduled to be held in June, 2010. The fact of the petitioners being wiser in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v.High Court of Delhi & Anr.; 2010 (2) SCALE 86 (=2010 3 SCC 104) would not come to the aid of the petitioners since the petitioners cannot rest their fate or plead inaction as no bar on the basis of a subsequent judgment rendered in another case and even that judgment was pronounced on 01.02.2010. 4. The writ petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 21, 2010 VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J. dm