Delayed claims for recruitment under old advertisements are barred by persistent judicial closure and laches.

The petitioner, a candidate under the BC category for the post of Sub-Inspector under Advertisement No. 704 of 2004, sought a writ of mandamus for appointment.

He claimed equality with 133 candidates appointed pursuant to the Supreme Court order in C.A. No. 2795-2797 of 2017 and 252 candidates directed to be appointed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 2372 of 2023.

The petitioner asserted he secured higher marks (195.89) than the 133 candidates previously appointed.

The State and BSSC opposed the petition, arguing the matter was closed by the Supreme Court and hit by gross laches, as the petitioner approached the court in 2026 for a 2004 recruitment exercise.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector under Advertisement No. 704 of 2004 based on the principle of parity with other candidates appointed via judicial intervention

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable after a lapse of 22 years from the date of advertisement and in light of the Supreme Court's observations in subsequent contempt proceedings

The Court relied on the principle of judicial discipline and the finality of litigation.

Supreme Court’s observations in Civil Appeal No. 2795-2797 of 2017, which allowed remedies for grievances regarding the 2017 selection.

Restrictive orders in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1711/2018, which barred further appeals/proceedings even if representations were rejected.

Doctrine of laches regarding stale claims seeking to reopen recruitment processes from 2004.

The Court noted that while the petitioner claimed higher marks than the 133 candidates appointed by the Supreme Court, the recruitment process in question originated in 2004.

The respondent’s argument regarding the 22-year delay was significant, as the petitioner sought relief in 2026 for a 2004 advertisement.

Although the petitioner argued that the restrictive orders in the Supreme Court contempt proceedings did not apply to him as he was not an intervenor, the Court found that the underlying issue had already been tested and decided multiple times through various Writ Petitions and Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) such as CWJC No. 9936 of 2021 and LPA No. 689 of 2021.

The Court reasoned that judicial discipline prevents a single judge from reopening an issue that has been conclusively addressed and closed by both the High Court in series of litigations and the Supreme Court.

The court emphasized its adherence to judicial discipline and declined to reopen the recruitment process for Advertisement No. 704 of 2004. No relief was granted.