Delayed challenge to completed selection process and appointment orders is barred by laches and acquiescence.

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) issued recruitment notifications in 2019 and 2021 for various posts, including Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and Agricultural Officers.

The selection processes were completed, and candidates were appointed in February 2022, serving for approximately five years by the time of the final hearing.

Following a September 2022 Division Bench judgment (directing the rearrangement of lists regarding women's reservations under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Act, 2016), the appellants—who were unsuccessful candidates—filed writ petitions in late 2022 and 2023.

They sought a mandamus to redo the selection list based on the 2022 judgment's criteria.

A Single Judge dismissed the petitions on grounds of delay, laches, and acquiescence, leading to these appeals.

1. Whether the appellants, as "fence-sitters" who participated in the selection process without initial challenge, can maintain a writ petition to revise selection lists after the issuance of appointment orders and significant delay.

2. Whether a subsequent judicial pronouncement regarding reservation methodology entitles unsuccessful candidates to reopen a concluded recruitment process after a lapse of several years.

The court applied Sections 26 and 27 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, concerning the horizontal and vertical arrangement of reservations for women.

It primarily relied on the equitable doctrine of "delay and laches" and the principle of "acquiescence," which prevents candidates from challenging a recruitment process after participating and failing, particularly once appointment orders are issued to third parties.

The court emphasized the judicial policy against entertaining "fence-sitters" who only seek relief after a favorable judgment is obtained by others.

The court reasoned that the appellants allowed the recruitment process to conclude and appointments to be finalized in 2021/2022 before approaching the court.

While the appellants relied on the 2022 Division Bench judgment (Paragraphs 43 and 44) regarding the proper implementation of Section 26, the Court held that such a relief cannot be granted retroactively to those who waited for years.

The Court observed that if there is an illegality in a notification, it must be challenged before completion; if the process is tainted, aggrieved persons must approach the court "immediately without causing any undue delay".

Entertaining these petitions would open a "Pandora's box," inviting countless unsuccessful candidates to disrupt settled appointments and administrative stability.

Consequently, the Court found the appellants’ claims barred by their status as "fence-sitters".

It held that the prayer to revisit or re-do the selection list is "per se not maintainable" after appointment orders have been issued and acted upon.

The Court affirmed that the appellants were not entitled to relief due to delay, laches, and the fact that a subsequent recruitment notification for the same posts had already been issued.

All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.