An unexplained 21-year delay bars a challenge to a public appointment.

The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as a teacher by notification dated 11 August 2002, alleging that the selection contravened the applicable Cadre and Recruitment Rules and qualification requirements.

He filed Application No. 31/2024 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, along with an application to condone a delay of approximately 21 years.

His explanation referred to advice received in 2000 that he could challenge the appointment and to difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, but did not explain the intervening years.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches and imposed costs of ₹25,000.

The petitioner then filed this writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order and the 2002 appointment notification.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner’s challenge to the 2002 appointment for delay and laches, given the explanation offered for the delay.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in imposing costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioner.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes a one-year limitation period for approaching the Tribunal, while Section 21(3) permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown.

The Court applied the principles of delay and laches, including that a person challenging a selection or appointment should approach the court or Tribunal promptly, since delay may prejudice third-party rights; a court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 will not ordinarily assist a person who has slept on their rights for a prolonged period.

The Court found that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for the substantial delay.

His affidavit indicated that he knew in 2000 that the appointment could be challenged, but gave no explanation for the period from 2000 to 2019; reliance on the COVID-19 pandemic therefore did not account for the preceding years.

Further, respondent No. 5 had been working in the post for nearly 25 years, making a belated challenge potentially prejudicial to established third-party rights.

The Tribunal was therefore justified in rejecting the application for delay and laches, but the Court found no basis for imposing the ₹25,000 costs.

The Tribunal’s order was confirmed except as to costs, and the writ petition was otherwise rejected.