é HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION l$l No.6099/2008 PETITIONERS Ashok Kumar‘ Pandey Vs RESPONDENTS STaTe of ChhaH’isgarh & ofhers a1 POST FOR ORDERS ON q NOVEMBER, 2008 sd/- Dhirendra Mishra‘’ Judge 6_.11.2008 . _ Present: . Grievance of The HIGH COURT OF CHHAT‘ITSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.lsl No.6099 of 2008 Ashok Kumar Pandey, son of Lafe B.P. Pandey, aged abouf 48 years, presently Seéfor-7, posfed as Principal Bhilai af Govt Disrr'icf High School Chhaffisgarh. Durg, Vs RESPONDENTS 1. Sfm‘e of Secre‘rary, Chhafh‘sgarh, School Educafion Through Deparfmenf, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manfraiaya, at? Raipur, Chha’n‘isgorh. 2. Join? Dfrec‘for, Lok Shikshan Shiksha Sombhag, Durg, Districf Durg, 6.6. 3. Chhm‘fisgarh. Disfricf Educafion Officer, burg, Mr'. KN. Nande, Advocafe for fhe peh‘h‘oner. Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for fhe Sfofe. O R D E R (Passed on Qz 11.2008) / Per Dhirendra Mishra J: N pe'rifioner- is The? he was dafed 5.2.1987 of Annéxure P—Z. He waS’oromofed as Lecfurer fn English vide order of Annexure P—6 promofion vide order of Annexure P— Lecturer on 22.9.1998. 9 da‘l’ed 1.9.1998 and he joined as 10 dofed 24.10.2005 has delefed The PEI‘I‘IIONER appointed as Teacher vide order £ u é name of Bhar'fi Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow from fhe lisf of fake universify and since the pe‘rh‘ioner did his post graduation from The above universify in fhe year 1991-92 vide Annexur'e P-3 and again appeared in The year 1994 for improving his division from fhe same universi‘ry on fhe basis of which he was promofed as Lec’rurer on 30.8.1996, fherefore, fhe respondenfs ough’r To have fixed his seniority w.e.f. 1991-92 in The gradoTion lisT of Annexure P—1. . IT is noT in dispuTe ThaT The peTiTioner was eorlier promoTed as LecTurer in The year 1996 vide Annexure P—6, however, order of promoTion was cancelled on The ground ThaT The peTiTioner does noT possess posT graduaTion degree in English from any recognized universiTy. The peTiTioner obTained posT graduaTion degree from PT. Ravishankar UniversiTy in The year 1998 and ThereafTer he was promoTed as LecTurer vide Annexure P—9. . IT is seTTled law ThaT The High CourT in exercise of iTs discreTion does noT ordinarily assisT The Tardy and The indolenT or The acquiescenT and The IeThargic. If There is inordinaTe delay on The parT of The peTiTioner and such delay is noT saTisfacT’orily explained, The High CourT may decline To inTervene and granT relief in exercise of iTs wriT jurisdicTion. IT is also seTTled ThaT The represenTaTions would noT be adequaTe explanaTion To Take care of delay. AIR 1987 SC 251 STaTe of M.P. Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal; AIR 1976 SC 2617 STaTe of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan SamanTri & 2007 (9) SCC 274 Shiv Doss Vs. Union of India and oThers. . In The insTanT case The promoTion of The peTiTioner was cancelled way back in The year 1997. The peTiTioner ThereafTer did his posT graduaTion from anoTher recognized universiTy on The basis of which he was promoTed in The year 1998. In These circumsTances The insTanT peTiTion by The peTiTioner filed afTer more Than Ten years when his promoTion was cancelled in The year 1997 is liable for dismissal on The ground of delay, laches and acqUIescence. . Accordingly, The peTiTion is dismissed aT The admission sTage iTself. No order as To cosTs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra‘ I,“ wgr Judge i y