IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.20045 of 2011 Date of decision : 31.10.2011 IvRaj Sharma and others ....Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioners pray that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued in their favour to quash Annexure P-12 which is a response to the legal notice submitted by them to highlight their grievance that they be considered for appointment as Sub-Inspectors from the date when other similarly situated persons were appointed pursuant to the test held in the year 1999 and grant them all consequential benefits thereafter. The petitioners, who apparently were denied the appointment on the ground that they had not obtained the minimum qualifying marks, rely upon the letter dated 26.3.1996 issued by the Director General of Indo-Tibetan Border Police stating therein that there were no minimum qualifying marks for the interview. The said letter also finds mention in a decision rendered by this Court on C.W.P.No.20045 of 2011 -2- 14.12.2007 in CWP No.12554 of 2006 pertaining to the claim raised by certain similarly situated persons as the petitioners. That being the factual position the petitioners also submitted a legal notice claiming parity with the cases of the persons who had chosen to file a writ petition and also claimed that since no minimum qualifying marks were prescribed they could not have been debarred from consideration for interview. A perusal of Annexure P-12, which is the consideration of the claim submitted by the petitioners, reveals that the respondents have expressed their helplessness to consider the case of the petitioners as they were deprived of the record of 1999 which stood weeded out. They have submitted that out of 21 candidates 14 candidates were appointed to the rank of Sub-Inspector as per the merit and vacancies which were available at that point of time and 7 vacancies remained unfilled. The reasoning per se does not seem to be perverse at all as it is quite logical that the respondents may have destroyed the records in the absence of any challenge to the selection at the nearest point of time. Consequently, there is no material placed by the petitioners on record from where this Court could be persuaded that the respondents could be put to a test by observing that the stand taken by them is unreasonable or unjustified. The petitioners were not vigilant enough and chose to sleep over the matter and did not wake up even when the letter was issued in the year 1996 much prior to the selection and even thereafter when some persons chose to come to this Court by way of CWP No.12554 of 2006. The petition is, therefore, clearly hit by delay and latches C.W.P.No.20045 of 2011 -3- and finding no merit therein the same is dismissed. 31.10.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss