Delayed challenge to absorption denial by "fence-sitters" is barred by laches despite pending contempt proceedings.

The petitioner was an employee of Shri Hazareshwar Higher Secondary School, a private aided institution taken over by the State Government on 01.07.1995.

While 131 posts were sanctioned for absorption based on a 1995 screening committee report, the petitioner was excluded.

Following extensive litigation regarding the validity of the screening process, a Division Bench in W.A. No. 59/2006 upheld the absorption of the initial 131 persons by consent of all parties and directed the remaining staff to submit representations.

The petitioner’s claim was rejected on 08.06.2015 (Annexure P/1) on grounds of non-availability of posts and lack of qualifications.

Although aware of this order in 2015 via contempt proceedings, the petitioner challenged it only in 2022, seeking parity with similarly situated employees who obtained favorable orders in 2021.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to absorption into government service despite the non-availability of sanctioned posts and a 30-year gap since the school’s takeover.

2. Whether the writ petition is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches, and whether the petitioner can be classified as a "fence-sitter".

The Court applied the principle that discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be denied even if the law favors the applicant, particularly if the relief is opposed to public policy or involves significant delay.

It relied on BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass (2011) 4 SCC 374, which establishes that "fence-sitters" who do not approach the court timeously cannot claim parity with proactive litigants once rights have accrued to others.

Furthermore, the court cited Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 6 SCC 545, affirming that the issuance of a writ is a discretionary remedy exercised to meet the ends of substantial justice.

The Court noted that the initial 131 sanctioned posts were already filled, and the petitioner had previously consented to the Division Bench order upholding those absorptions; thus, no vacancy existed to accommodate him.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim for absorption in other schools within the district, holding that rights were limited to the specific school taken over.

Crucially, the Court found the petitioner’s explanation for the seven-year delay in challenging the 2015 order—pending contempt proceedings—to be factually incorrect and legally insufficient.

Because the petitioner waited for others to secure favorable judgments before filing his own petition, he was deemed a "fence-sitter" ineligible for discretionary relief.

The Court emphasized that directing absorption after 30 years without the petitioner having worked on the post would be inappropriate.

The Court upheld the impugned order dated 08.06.2015 and dismissed the writ petition as being without substance.