57 HIGH C.OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition No.2816/2002 h CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nayak, ChiefJustice & Hon'bte Shri D.R.Deshmukh, J. >fi!a!W-»!!S8itA PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Awad.esh Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Ram Gopal Rathore,'aged about 32 years R/o Awadesh Kumar Rathore Post: Khokra Tehsil Janjgjr District Bilaspur (M.P.). V/s 1. State Of Madhya Pradesh Thorough Secretary, School Educaiion, VaDabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.). 2. M.P. Junior Ssrvics Selsctian Boacd, through Secretary, E-Bfock, Ofd Secretariate, Bhopal. 3. Dsputy Director Education Compoate Builcfing Bilaspur (M.P.). Shri .V.R. Tiwari, feamed counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, tearned Dy. Advocate Gsnerai for ths State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 27.07.2026) The following orat order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK, C.J. Alttiough it was contended by She tearned counsel for the petitioner that this writ petition is not covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal dated 17/5/2002 made in O.A. No. 118/19.88, having perused the said judgment of the Ful! Bench which is produced as Annexure P/2 at page 10 the materia! papers, we are of the considered opinion that that judgment squarely applies to the present writ petition also. In thejudgment Annexuce P/2, it is pointed out that Division Bench of the Tribuna!, in its order dated 16/8/99 passed in T.A. No. 106/1988 which is reported in 1989 M.P.S.L.R. 357, had held that the select-list submitted by the Board stood exhausted after lapse of one year, and therefore, could not be acted upon after one year of its receipt in the offlce of Education Department, ^sp;:.^^si:"%^ISM^» IP%;S^^ •^— 58 :^fsSs^'r?ft 2. that is to say, after 1987. Under the Service Regulation, a setect-list could be operated only for a period of one year is not disputed before the Court. The dispute relates to selection made by the Board in the year 1985-86. The simiiar contention urged by similarly circumstanced applicants for the post was tumed down by the Tribunal on an early occasion and that opinion has been upheld by the Apex Court, as pointed oirt by the Tribunal in its order dated 17/5/2002 (Annexure P/2). Moreover, we are not inclined to entertain this writ application, if not for any other reason but for the reason that the petitioner is gui!ty of delay and laches. Though the select-list was prepared during the year 1985-86 and the term of the select-list came to an end in the month of February 1987, the petitioner took neariy 6 years to challenge his non-selection for the post of Asstt. Teacher. The fact that he was making correspondence with the department, even if it is true, would not come to his aid to ignors the enormous delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingty dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd(- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^6 .^i