Civil Writ Petition No. 19073 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19073 of 2011 Date of Decision : 12.10.2011 Ramphal Shastri .......... Petitioner Versus Haryana Public Service Commission, Panchkula & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the selection of respondents No.2 & 3, who were appointed as Lecturers (College Cadre) in the subject of Sanskrit in June 2004, on the ground that the petitioner is much more meritorious candidate and has not been granted the marks which he was entitled to during the selection process as per the criteria adopted by the Haryana Public Service Commission, Panchkula. He contends that after the declaration of the result, the petitioner filed a application dated 20.2.2007 (Annexure P-17) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He contends that the petitioner thereafter preferred another application dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure P-18) and it is only thereafter that the information was supplied to the petitioner on 30.11.2010 that the petitioner has not been granted the marks which he was entitled to. Accordingly, he has approached this Court at this stage. On a question put by this Court as to how does he explain the delay in approaching this Court virtually seven years after and the explanation put forth by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Right to Civil Writ Petition No. 19073 of 2011 -2- Information Act came into force in the year 2005 and petitioner thereafter preferred an application in February, 2007 for seeking information. When confronted that if the information is not supplied within 30 days appeal is to be filed. Counsel submits that it is only on 25.10.2010 that the reminder was submitted by the petitioner on the basis of which the information was supplied to him on 30.11.2010. The explanation which has been put forth by the counsel for the petitioner is totally unsatisfactory. A person, who has slept over his right for more than seven years cannot now be permitted to break open a stale issue on the plea that the information was not supplied to him on time. The remedy available to him, in case the said information was not supplied, was not availed of by the petitioner and now he has missed the bus and cannot be allowed to agitate a claim, which at the appropriate time has not been taken care of by the petitioner. In any case the first agitation shown on the part of the petitioner with regard to the selection and appointment made in the year 2004 is only in the year 2007 which again is after an unexplained inordinate delay. The present petition, thus, cannot be entertained at this belated stage when much water has flowed under the bridge and accordingly same stands dismissed. 12.10.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE