Laches and Acquiescence: Fence-Sitters Who Delay Approaching the Court Cannot Claim Benefit of Earlier Judgments Requested by Others

The petitioners applied for Teacher posts under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) pattern following Government Order No. 635-Edu of 2010.

An advertisement was issued on October 12, 2012, for vacancies in Education Zone Quilmuqam, Bandipora.

Although the petitioners were empanelled, they were not issued formal engagement orders.

Other similarly situated candidates successfully litigated this issue in Manzoor Ahmad Chopan vs. State of JK (SWP No. 1640/2013), where the Court directed the completion of the selection process on July 14, 2014, a judgment upheld by a Division Bench in 2017.

The petitioners, who did not join the earlier litigation and did not file written representations, approached the Court for the first time in 2026 seeking parity with the Manzoor Ahmad Chopan judgment.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the judgment in Manzoor Ahmad Chopan vs. State of JK despite not being parties to that litigation.

2. Whether the writ petition is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches given the decade-long gap between the cause of action and the filing of the petition.

The Court primarily applied the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the doctrine of "Delay and Laches," which precludes relief to litigants who sleep over their rights, and the principle of "Acquiescence," where a party’s inaction implies acceptance of a legal situation.

The court also distinguished between diligent litigants and "fence-sitters"—those who wait for the outcome of others' litigation before asserting their own rights.

The Court observed that the advertisement notice was issued in 2012, yet the petitioners waited 14 years to seek judicial intervention.

The Court noted that the petitioners acted as "fence-sitters," failing to join the 2013 writ petition filed by their peers.

Furthermore, even after the precedent they relied upon attained finality in 2017, the petitioners remained in "deep slumber" for nine additional years.

The Court found no evidence of written representations made during this period, characterizing the petitioners’ conduct as highly lethargic and negligent.

The Court reasoned that by failing to diligently pursue their grievance, the petitioners had effectively acquiesced to the respondents' inaction.

The Court held that the petition was heavily barred by delay and laches and consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no directions were issued for the engagement of the petitioners.