Unexplained delay defeats writ relief for a candidate who never joined.

The petitioner was appointed as Guruji at an Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) Centre in 1997 but did not join.

In December 2006, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution in his favour, but the District Project Coordinator declined approval, relying on the State policy dated 19 July 2005 discontinuing further Guruji appointments.

The petitioner challenged that decision under Article 226, seeking appointment and consequential benefits; the respondents opposed the claim on grounds including delay and non-joining.

Whether the petitioner could claim appointment nearly nine years after the 1997 appointment order, having not joined the post and not satisfactorily explained the delay.

Whether the District Project Coordinator’s refusal to approve the Gram Panchayat’s 2006 resolution warranted interference under Article 226.

In exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, a High Court may refuse relief where delay or laches, considered with the applicant’s conduct and the circumstances, makes relief inequitable; a litigant who sleeps over a claim is not ordinarily entitled to discretionary relief.

The Court relied on State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, concerning stale claims and unexplained delay.

Focus Energy Ltd. v. Government of India, I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 53 (DB), on laches and equitable relief.

Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322, on the relevance of delay and prejudice in Article 226 proceedings.

Ashok Kumar v. District Magistrate, Basti, (2012) 3 SCC 311, on the inability of a litigant who has slept over a right to claim discretionary relief.

The Court also noted that selection or issuance of an appointment order does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment where the candidate did not join.

The Court found that the petitioner had not joined after the 31 March 1997 appointment order and had waited nearly nine years to pursue the claim.

His assertion that the Sarpanch prevented him from joining did not, in the Court’s view, explain why he had not approached the competent authority or the Court at the relevant time. The petition’s one-line assertion that there was no delay was insufficient to explain the lapse.

Applying the principles of laches and discretionary relief under Article 226, the Court concluded that the stale and inadequately explained claim did not warrant interference; it did not grant relief on the basis of the later Panchayat resolution.

The writ petition was dismissed.