Unexplained delay and acquiescence justify dismissal of a belated challenge to a settled public appointment.

An appointment process for Panchayat Teachers in Gram Panchayat Raj, Chipura, Sampatchak Block, Patna, was conducted pursuant to the 2006–07 recruitment process. At the counselling held on 10 November 2007, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 3 with 560 marks, while respondent no. 8 was placed at Serial No. 6 with 540 marks; Nitu Kumari was ultimately selected

By order dated 5 June 2015, the Tribunal directed the Panchayat Secretary to take appropriate action regarding her candidature and to place her at the appropriate position in the merit list. Respondent no. 8 was thereafter appointed on 8 September 2015 and joined on 10 September 2015

The present writ petition was filed on 27 July 2022, approximately three years after the State Appellate Authority’s order. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent no. 8 completed teacher training, qualified the relevant ability tests, and was appointed/confirmed as a Vishisht Shikshak

Whether the writ petition challenging respondent no. 8’s appointment and the orders dated 5 June 2015 and 15 July 2019 was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, laches, waiver and acquiescence?

Whether the petitioner could seek cancellation of respondent no. 8’s appointment and her own appointment on the basis of alleged superior merit and alleged procedural irregularities in the selection process?

Whether the subsequent service status of respondent no. 8 as a Vishisht Shikshak and the absence of the Panchayat Teacher post affected the maintainability or relief sought in the writ petition?

The Court applied the discretionary and equitable nature of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, under which stale claims may be refused where there is inordinate and unexplained delay, acquiescence, waiver, or prejudice caused to the opposite party.

Relying principally on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Court held that persons who fail to challenge wrongful action within a reasonable time and later seek relief after others have litigated successfully may be treated as fence-sitters

The Court also relied on State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri, (2015) 15 SCC 602, State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, 1986 4 SCC 566, and the principles discussed in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, reaffirming that delay and laches may cause prejudice and prevent equitable writ relief

The Court additionally referred to Smt. Renu Kumari Panday v. State of Bihar, 2011 (4) PLJR 297, concerning the statutory framework governing Panchayat Teachers and the limited authority of appellate bodies under the applicable Rules

The Court found that the petitioner did not challenge the original non-selection or the 2007 recruitment process for several years and first approached the High Court only in 2016

Even after the State Appellate Authority dismissed her appeal on 15 July 2019, she waited nearly three further years before filing the present writ petition on 27 July 2022

By contrast, respondent no. 8 had been appointed in 2015, had joined service, undergone training, qualified the prescribed tests, and subsequently obtained appointment and confirmation as a Vishisht Shikshak

In these circumstances, reopening the recruitment and disturbing respondent no. 8’s settled service position would cause prejudice and unsettle an arrangement that had continued for several years. Applying the doctrine of delay and laches, the Court declined to examine the petitioner’s allegations of superior merit, fraud, or lack of notice on merits

The petitioner could not seek to unsettle respondent no. 8’s appointment after remaining inactive for several years and after respondent no. 8 had acquired a settled position in service

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and all pending applications were also dismissed