WP(C) 1460/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. K.SHARMA Heard Mr. S.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. S. Chamaria, lea rned Standing counsel, Agricultural Marketing Board. By means of this writ petition which was filed on 03.03.2010, the petiti oner has challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Assistant Marketi ng Inspector under the respondent Board way back in 2000-2001. Although the resp ondent No. 4 has been arrayed as party respondent and it has been contended that he was illegally appointed by the respondent Board as Assistant Marketing Inspe ctor, the wholesome allegations made in the writ petition is that the respondent Board took recourse to illegal appointments of many more Assistant Marketing In spectors way back in 2000. According the petitioners, the respondent should take recourse to fresh appointment following the selection procedure cancelling the said appointments. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, both offic ial and private , the very locus of the petitioners to file the writ petition ha s been questioned. It has also been contended that the appointments in question being of the year 2000, such appointments cannot be challenged after 10 years an d that too without making the appointees party respondents. In paragraph-6 of th e counter affidavit discussing the status of the respondent Board, it has been s tated that it is an Autonomous Body created under the specific statute called As sam Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1972 and under the Act, the Board has a bsolute power to regulate the service mattes of its employees, more particularly in the area of appointment, promotion and dismissal from service. From paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit it appears that 189 number of posts of Assistant Marketing Inspector had been filled up. The affidavit further states about the approval etc. accorded by the Board towards such appointment. While Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised tran sparency and fair play in the matter of appointment, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that in the garb o f filing the writ petition, the petitioners have sought to disturb the settled p osition pertaining to employment of 189 appointees with some ulterior motive. Em phasising the need for adhering to the principle relating to entertaining the wr it petition which is filed after inordinate delay, he submits that the writ peti tion having been filed after 10 years of appointment, on that score alone the wr it petition is liable to be dismissed. In the case of Ratan Chandra Sammanta and ors. vs. Union of India and or s. reported in 1993 SC 2276, the Apex Court held that a writ is issued by the Co urt in favour of a person who has some right and not for the sake of roving enqu iry leaving scope for manoeuvring. It is further held that delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In that case, the petitioner was retr enched from Railway service and the writ petition was filed after more than 10 y ears and on that score alone rejecting the plea of being similarly situated, the Apex court dismissed the writ petition. In the instant case, admittedly the appointments were made way back in 2 000-01. None of the appointees except the respondent No. 4 are party respondents to this proceeding. Further, the appointment order of the respondent No. 4 has also not been enclosed to the writ petition. There is also no indication as to w hen he was appointed. The writ petition having structured in that manner, I am a fraid no relief can be granted to the petitioner. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.