HIGH C3URT GF CHHATT‘ISGARH: EIL SFUR Writ Petition No 1549 9i 2W4 (Writ Petitiun under Articie 225 of the Constitution 0f kndia.) Singie Bench : Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Presenf : $hr£ R‘K. Tiwari, counsei fcrthe peQitioner‘ $hri AS Kach‘nawaha, counse} far the respondent No.1 ‘ 3hr} Arum Sae, Gow, Advacate for the respendent No.2 Sf 8hr} VR. Tiwari, coun$el for the respondent No.3. Shri Y.C, Sharma, counsei for the respondent No.5. ; QmL OR3ER (Passeé en 8‘“ day of August, 29%) By this oe’rition the petitionerfUnion chaiienges rhe appoin‘tmeni whereby order dated 21-7-1 986 (Annexure P11) of the respondent No.3 she was appointed as Upper Division Teacher (Art), 0h the grounds that the respondent No.3 does not possess proper quaiifioation, the appointment is not made by the competent authority, approvai of the State Government ; aL". 1* x Petitioner Nagar Nigam Samast Karmachayi Sangh BHaspur :hrcugh Rating P¥esident Dharamiai Yadao 30:1 of Shri Pvarala! Yadao, Lecturer in La! Bahadur Shaetri Higher Secendary Schwi, Biiaepur, Tahsii and Disii. Biiaspu! (CG). Versus Respondents 1) The Municipai Ccrporation, Bitaspur, through Ccmmissioner. Municipa! Corporaiion, Biiaspuf (CG). 2) The Staie of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Town Deveiopmem Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 3} Smt. Usha Gupta wife of Shri Narendra Gupta aged ahaut 45 years, Lecturer, Rio. Rajkishore Nagar, Chandan Awas, BHaepur (CG). 4) Pubiic Service Commission, MP. through $ecretary, Residency Area Daiiy Coiiege Road, indore. 5) Pubiic Service Commissien, CG. through Secretary, $hankar Nagar Ward Raipur (CG). -90- ' W5 has not been obtained, there are some irregmarities and iliegaiities in the selection process and the respondent authorities have not followed the proper rutes. 2) Be that as it may, the question asto whether the Union, can chatienge the appointment of an empioyee, teamed counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that it ie in the interest of the employees’ Union. Thus, this petition. 3) The petitioner has no right to challenge the same. The petitioner has tiled this petition on 7-6-2006 challenging the appointment order dated 21-7- 1986 (Annexure PM) after a period of 18 years without explaining the reasons for laches and delay; The petitioner has not taken any‘actionisteps after 1986 till the present petition is tiled on ?-$—2008. 4) it is well settied that High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and indolent or the acquiescent and the iethargic as the belated approach may have the effect of initiating not only hardship as inconvenience but aiso injustice to third parties (See: Jagdish Narain Maltiar Vs. The State of Bihar & ethereal P5. $adasivaswamy Vs. State of Tami! NaduG. State of MP. & others Vs. Nandiai Jaiswal and othersi Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & others Vs. Dinabandhu Majumda! and anothera and Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd, through its Chairman & Managing Director and another Vs. K. Thangappan & anotherg.), 5) in View of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order asto Mgr, 805$. Sd/- Sau'sh K. Agnihom‘ Judge i AIR 1973 so 1343 91111974 sc 2271 ' (ms) 4 sec 566 ir1995) ascc 172 9 (2006) 4 scc 322