LPA No.238/2009 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 238/2009 & CM No. 7281/2009 JOGINDER KUMAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Mahabir Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, Advocate. versus DSSSB ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Elgin Matt John for Ms. Anju Bhattacharya, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 19.05.2009 1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17th April, 2009. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) applied for the post of TGT (Male) Sanskrit, pursuant to an advertisement dated 4th October, 2003. The total posts to be filled by the Department in the OBC category were twelve. As per the appellant, when he applied for information under Right to Information Act, he was informed by the respondent wide letter dated 24th March, 2009 that he had secured 56.75 marks while two other selected candidates under the OBC Category secured 71 and 62.50 marks. As per the LPA No.238/2009 Page 2 of 3 appellant, the said letter also disclosed that there were still ten vacancies which had remained unfilled as no suitable candidate had been found. It is the case of the appellant that since no qualifying marks were prescribed in the said advertisement and ten vacancies still existed, the appellant should have been selected to the said advertised post. 3. The learned single Judge took note of the fact that admittedly, the post was advertised as long back as on 4th October, 2003 and the appellant had come to know about the result of the same after he was not selected. The appellant, for the first time asked for certain information under Right to Information Act in 2006. Thereafter the appellant again sought information in 2008. Since either the appellant’s letter had not been replied to or incomplete information had been given, he again sought information which was replied to vide letter dated 24th March, 2009. The learned single Judge has correctly come to the conclusion that in the entire petition, there is no explanation given by the appellant for approaching this Court so belatedly after a lapse of about five years from the date of the declaration of the results. The learned singled Judge has rightly held that the appellant did not pursue his rights diligently and slept over them for over four to five years. There is clearly inexplicable delay on the part of the appellant to seek timely remedy. The learned single Judge thus, in our view, correctly refused to entertain the writ petition on account of delay and latches. LPA No.238/2009 Page 3 of 3 4. We see no infirmity in the said order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The pending application stands disposed of as well. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 19, 2009 sb