Ar: H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. 8c HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. WA. No. 251 of 2008 APPELLANT/ Nagar Nigam Samast Karmchari Sangh Petitioner Bilaspur Through Acting President — Dharamlal Yadav, S/o Shri Pyare Lal Yadav, aged about 49 years, Lecturer La! Bahadur Shastri Higher Secondary School, Biiaspur, Tah & Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1‘ The Municipal Corporation, Biiaspur Through Commissioner, iv‘iunioipai Corporation, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The State of Chhattisgarh through- Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Town Deveiopment Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Usha Gupta, W/o Narendra Gupta, aged about 45 years, Lecturer, R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Chandan Awas, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Public Service Commission, MP. Through Secretary, Residency Area Daily College Road, lndore. 5. Public Service Commission, CG. through Secretary Shankar Nagar Ward Raipur (C.G.) Memo of Writ Appeal under Section 2(1 1 of the Chhattisgarh Hiqh Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2906. Present: Shri N.K. Chatterjee, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No.2. JUDGMENT (17m November, 2008) ‘ 21“%4 .g rl The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2. Appellant — Union has tiled this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 08.08.2008, passed in W.P.No.1594/2004. 3. The appellant had tiled the writ petition for the following reliefs: “7(i) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire service records leading to the issuance of appointment order of the Respondent No. 3 as Upper DivisionTeacher (HISTORY) for kind perusal. (ii) The Hon’bte Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 and. 2 to take appropriate action in terminating the service of Respondent No. 3. (iii) The Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to recover the entire wages received by the Respondent No. 3 due to her illegal and back- door entry in service.” 4. The petitioner, ‘thus in substance, was challenging the appointment of respondent No.3 Smt. Usha Gupta on the post of Lecturer in the year 1986. 5. Learned Single Judge considering that the writ petition chalienging the appointment of respondent No.3 was filed in the year 2004 i.e. about 18-years, after the appointment of ' a. r“ a . (,’ «. w respondent No.3, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and iaches. 6. Shri N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsei for the appeiiant couid not dispute that the appointment of respondent No.3 Smt.Usha Gupta on the post of Lecturer was made in the year 1986 and the writ petition by the appellant challenging her appointment was med after 18 years in the year 2004. 7. in this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the appellant’s writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 8r The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is subbu . »I,. , r, — ' . an 4, hereby‘dismissed summariiy. , 3d,. ' Sd/- Chief Jusu'ce SunllKumar . S.1nha Judge Judge