IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1595 of 1999 BIHAR RENEAWABLE ENERGY Development Agency, Chhajubagh, Patna through its Director Versus 1. MISTER MURARI son of Sri Suresh Sharma, resident of village Jhampati, P.S. Kinjor (Karpi), District Jehanabad. 2. The State of Bihar. ----------- 6 01-04-2009 Heard the parties and perused the judgement and order under appeal. The writ petitioner was denied appointment after selection because he could not produce the domicile certificate within a short time granted by the authorities. The domicile certificate was issued by the concerned District Magistrate as per his convenience and under similar circumstances a writ petition of another employee, Rakesh Sharma, was allowed on 19-5-1997. Following that judgement the writ court allowed the claim of the writ petitioner also on 3-8-1999. On behalf of the appellant it has been strenuously argued that the writ petition in question was filed belatedly in 1997 when the cause of action had arisen in July, 1988 and there was no explanation for such delay. Delay alone does not debar the writ court to grant relief in appropriate cases. In the present case it is clear from the averments made in the writ petition that writ petitioner described himself not only as a poor person but as a destitute also and he could gather courage to move this court in the year 1997 only when he came to know that another candidate having similar case had succeeded in obtaining relief from this court on 19-5-1997. Thereafter he filed the writ petition without any delay and also annexed a copy of the judgement in the case - 2 - of Rakesh Sharma. For a poor and destitute person fighting litigation in High Court is always a luxury which he could ill afford unless he has good chance of success. In the present case the delay has been sufficiently explained on account of poverty of the appellant and the fact that this court granted relief to a similarly situated person on 19-5-1997. Thereafter there was not much change in the situation and there appears no dispute that vacancies were available on which the writ petitioner was appointed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in our view, there was no impediment in granting relief to the writ petitioner and the writ petition could not have been thrown on the ground of delay although no such observation finds place in the judgement and order under appeal. The use of word regularized in the last sentence of the order under appeal need not disturb the authorities because that expression appears to have been used loosely only to ensure that if there was a vacancy to arise in near future the writ petitioner may be appointed against such vacancy. Since vacancies existed and writ petitioner has been accommodated and appointed on those vacancies that expression or word should not cause any anxiety to the respondents nor it shall have any effect on the nature of post to which appointments have been made. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)