IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petiton No. 360 of 2011 (S/S) Guru Prasad Bhatt and others ………..Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N. P. Sah Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners were candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade in the year 2004. They were not selected and consequently not appointed. Petitioners challenged the selection on the ground that the quality points, which were otherwise liable to be given to them, were not given though they had done their post- graduation in Sanskrit. On similar set of facts agitating the same selection and appointment, some candidates had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 477 of 2003 (S/S) Adarsh Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, with findings that the quality points were wrongly not given to such petitioners. The State challenged the said order in special appeal, which was dismissed on 9.3.2006. Consequently, State moved to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which after grant 2 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. When all this had already happened, as narrated above, the petitioners then approached the State authorities by filing a representation in October, 2010 wherein they have stated that they are also liable to be appointed as Assistant Teachers, L. T. Grade, claiming parity with the ones already referred above. The representation of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that there are no posts available and moreover they had not approached in time. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court. Now after a gap of more than six years, taking a clue from the appointment of such petitioners i.e. the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 477 of 2003 (S/S) Adarsh Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, the present petitioners have filed this writ petition claiming parity with the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 477 of 2003 (S/S) Adarsh Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others. It is a settled principle of law that those who sleep over their rights, Court will not come for their rescue. The petitioners slept over their rights for six long years and only when similarly situated person got relief from the Court, they have raised the issue regarding their appointments. A Division Bench of this Court regarding the same appointments (which are presently being agitated in the present writ petition), has already rejected the claim of the petitioners (respondents therein). This being in special appeal no. 68 of 2011 on 26.4.2011. It was done with the following observations: 3 “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 dealt 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 s 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 stage 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, her permitted his cause of action to die. 7. It is true the principles 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 favor 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 favor.” 4 This writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the same ground as above as there has been an inordinate delay by the petitioners in approaching this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. No order as to cost. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 27.4.2011 Kuldeep