1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 709/2009 Badan Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. ......... Date of Order : 10/02/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.M.Mridul Sr.Advocate with Mr.P.S.Chundawat, for petitioners. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to take them on duty from the date they were selected i.e. from 3.7.2003 and to provide all consequential benefits. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners Hetram Sharma, Satish Kumar Sharma and Badan Singh filed writ petition before Jaipur Bench of this Court along with 52 others in all 55 petitioners being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2598/2002 “Narain Swaroop and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.” which came to be disposed of by order 2 dated 4.10.2002 advising the petitioners to submit representation before the Director, Panchayati Raj Department and the concerned authority was directed to decide the representation within 30 days therefrom. One of petitioner Badan Singh was also petitioner No.7 in SBCW No.2578/01 before Jaipur Bench of this Court which came to be dismissed by order dated 30.9.2002. However, the petitioners therein were granted liberty to serve notice for demand of justice on the concerned authority and concerned authority was expected to consider and decide the same. Thereafter by communication Annex.3 dated 3.7.2003, the Zila Parishad, Barmer approached to the Secretary to the Govt., Primary and Secondary Education, Jaipur with regard to the appointment to certain persons. The petitioners seek direction to the respondents to appoint them in pursuance of the advertisement published in the year 1998. In my view, the writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. The advertisement was issued way back in the year 1998 and thereafter the matter has travelled to various stages and ultimately Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2002 SCC (L&S) 935 has set the controversy at rest and thereafter almost more than six years have since elapsed and the vacancies of Teacher Gr.III available under the said advertisement and thereafter accruing, have been determined, advertised and have been filled and 3 therefore, at such a belated stage, a settled position cannot be unsettled. In Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar Vs. Bank of India, AIR 1997 SC 2249 the delay of 3 and ½ years was considered to be non-condonable holding therein that filing of the petition after delay of about 3 & ½ years suffers from vice of delay and laches. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. Reference may be made to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 1992 SC 1414, State of Orissa Vs. Lochan Nayak, (2003) 10 SCC 678, New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1365 , in Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K.Roy & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 347 and in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman & Managing Director & Anr. Vs. K.Thangappan & Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 322. In this view of the matter, in my view, the instant writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches and it is therefore, dismissed on this count alone. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp